If the consideration is not recited in the written contract, or if recited appears only as a recital of fact and not as a contractual term, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show what the real consideration is.1 "The language with reference to the consideration is not contractual; it is merely by way of recital of a fact, viz., the amount of such consideration, and not an agreement to pay it, and hence such recitals may be contradicted."2 Thus the real consideration can be shown under ordinary forms of deeds3 and notes.4 Under such a written contract it may be shown that the real consideration was the assumption of the debt of another person,5 as where in a deed the grantee assumes as a part of the consideration the payment of the debts of the grantor, which have become liens upon the property,6 or is to pay the vendor one half the proceeds of the minerals on the realty conveyed.7 So where a deed is given an oral contract whereby the grantor agrees to pay certain street assessments may be enforced.8 So it may be shown even where a covenant against encumbrances is inserted in a deed that the grantee retained the purchase price to pay the encumbrances, and subsequently settled with the grantor, the latter relying on the statement of the grantee that the encumbrances were paid.9 The agreement by the grantee to assume a mortgage may be shown even if the deed contains a covenant against encumbrances.10 If the deed excepts a prior mortgage from a covenant of warranty, oral evidence is admissible to show that the grantee was to assume the principal of the mortgage, but not the interest thereon.11 So under a deed which recites a certain sum of money as a consideration, it may be shown that the transfer of title to certain horses was also a part of the consideration.12 However, if the deed shows that the consideration was love and affection, neither of the parties can show that it was a valuable consideration.13 As between an execution creditor of grantor and the grantee, evidence of the real character of the consideration may be received.14 An oral contract of employment may be shown to be a part of the consideration for a release of damages.15 So it may be shown that a settlement of suit for money loaned in a criminal action included also a settlement of suit for a breach of promise.16 A note which, on its face recites that it is for services rendered by a payee as attorney may be shown to be supported by a promise of the payee to attend to the interests of the maker of a note in a specified estate.17 So the consideration of a note may be shown to be a renewal of a prior note.18 The consideration for a conveyance may be shown to be the permission by the grantee to the grantor to grow wheat on a part of the land conveyed.19 So the real consideration may be shown to be the release of a guarantor20 or of an obligor upon a note.21 Where A conveyed realty to B in payment of a debt, but A, in order to prevent trouble with his relatives, inserted a money consideration of $2,800, and induced B to advance him that amount by a promise to refund it later, B may show the real transaction.22 If an instrument purports to be "for value received" the actual consideration may be shown. Thus a written guaranty of a note, purporting to be "for value received" may be shown to be in consideration of an agreement to forbear suit.23 If a nominal valuable consideration is shown in the instrument, the real consideration may be shown, as where the consideration is one dollar,24 or one dollar and other considerations,25 or five dollars and love and affection.26 So if a written contract shows on its face that it is divisible, it may be shown that the actual consideration was for one of the promises only.27 This rule has been extended to a case where an aggregate sum as consideration for several covenants may be shown to be made up of a separate amount for each, and thus failure of consideration for a note given may be shown.28

12Cassilly v. Cassilly, 57 O. S. 582; 49 N. E. 795.

13 Jackson v. Ely, 57 0. S. 450; 49 N. E. 792.

14Milich v. Packing Co., 60 Kan. 229; 56 Pac. 1; Jackowski v. Steel Co., 103 Wis. 448; 79 N. W. 757.

15 Clark v. Mallory, 185 111. 227; 56 N. E. 1099; affirming 83 111. App. 488.

16 Allen v. Mill Co., 18 Wash. 216; 51 Pac. 37

1 Stone v. Minter, 111 Ga. 45; 50 L. R. A. 356; 36 S. E. 321; Bros-seau v. Louy, 209 111. 405; 70 N. E. 901; affirming 110 111. App. 16; Ryan v. Hamilton, 205 111. 191; 68 N. E. 781; reversing 103 111. App. 212; Lake Erie, etc., Ry. v. Holland, - Ind. -; 69 N. E. 138; Stewart v. R. R., 141 Ind. 55; 40 N. E. 67; Pickett v. Green, 120 Ind. 584; 22 N. E. 737; Citizens' Street Ry. v. Heath, 29 Ind. App.

395; 62 N. E. 107; Moore v. Harrison, 26 Ind. App. 408; 59 N. E. 1077; Farmers' Savings Bank v. Hansmann, 114 la. 49; 86 N. W. 31; Poor's Executor v. Scott (Ky.), 68 S. W. 397; Price v. Price, 111 Ky. 771; 64 S. W. 746; 66 S. W. 529; Jensen v. Crosby, 80 Minn. 158; 83 N. W. 43; Aldrich v. Whit-aker, 70 N. H. 627; 47 Atl. 591; Medical College Laboratory v. University, 178 N. Y. 153; 70 N. E. 467; Keuka College v. Ray, 167 N. Y. 96; 60 N. E. 325; Forester v. Van Auken, - N. D. -; 96 N. W. 301; Miller v. Livingston, 22 Utah 174; 61 Pac. 569; Williams v. Blu-menthal, 27 Wash. 24; 67 Pac. 393; Butt v. Smith, - Wis. -; 99 N. W. 328; Cuddy v. Foreman, 107 Wis. 519; 83 N. W. 1103; Perkins v. McAuliffe, 105 Wis. 582; 81 N. W. 645.

2 Pickett v. Green, 120 Ind. 584, 588; 22 N. E. 737.

3 Harraway v. Harraway, 136 Ala. 499; 34 So. 836; Hamaker v. Coons, 117 Ala. 603; 23 So. 655; Anthony v. Chapman, 65 Cal. 73; 2 Pac. 889; Martin v. White, 115 Ga. 866; 42 S. E. 279; Harkless v. Smith, 115 Ga. 350; 41 S. E. 634; Leggett v. Patterson, 114 Ga. 714; 40 S. E. 736; Stewart v. R. R., 141 Ind. 55; 40 N. E. 67; Coleman v. Gammon (la.), 83 N. W. 898; Ford v. Savage, 111 Mich. 144; 69 N. W. 240; Le May v. Brett, 81 Minn. 506; 84 N. W. 339; Langan v. Iverson, 78 Minn. 299; 80 N. W. 1051; Columbia National Bank v. Baldwin, 64 Neb. 732; 90 N. W. 890; Baird v. Baird, 145 N. Y. 659; 28 L. R. A. 375; 40 N. E. 222; Carter v. Day, 59 O. S. 96; 69 Am. St. Rep. 757; 51 N. E. 967; Lenhardt v. Ponder, 64 S. C. 354; 42 S. E. 169; Alexander v. McDaniel, 56 S. C. 252; 34 S. E. 405; Halvorsen v. Halvorsen, -Wis. -; 97 N. W. 494. Such evidence cannot be used to contradict the effect and operation of such deed.

4Folmar v. Siler, 132 Ala. 297; 31 So. 719; Booth v. Fire-Engine Co., 118 Ala. 369; 24 So. 405; Burke v. Napier, 106 Ga. 327; 32 S. E. 134; Gifford v. Fox (Neb.), 95 N. W. 1066.

5 Main v. Aukam, 12 App. D. C. 375; Harts v. Emery, 184 111. 560; 56 N. E. 865; affirming 84 111. App. 317.

6 Carter v. Griffin, 114 Ga. 321; 40 S. E. 290; Lowery v. Downey, 150 Ind. 364; 50 N. E. 79; McDill v. Gunn, 43 Ind. 315; Logan v. Miller, 106 la. 511; 76 N. W. 1005; Lamb v. Tucker, 42 la. 118; Hopper v. Calhoun, 52 Kan. 703; 39 Am. St.

Rep. 363; 35 Pac. 816; Clark v. Lowe. 113 Mich. 352; 71 N. W. 638; Ford v. Savage, 111 Mich. 144; 69 N. W. 240; Bensiek v. Cook. 110 Mo. 173; 33 Am. St. Rep. 422; 19 S. W. 642; Ketcham v. Brooks, 27 N. J. Eq. 347; Society v. Haines, 47 O. S. 423; 25 N. E. 119; Merri-man v. Moore, 90 Pa. St. 78; Miller v. Kennedy, 12 S. D. 478; 81 N. W. 906; Johnson v. Elmen, 94 Tex. 168; 86 Am. St. Rep. 845; 52 L. R. A. 162; 59 S. W. 253.

7 Michael v. Foil, 100 N. C. 178; 6 Am. St. Rep. 577; 6 S. E. 264.

8 Post v. Gilbert, 44 Conn. 9.

9 Becker v. Knudson, 86 Wis. 14; 56 N. W. 192.

10 Johnson v. Elmer, 94 Tex. 168;

52 L. R. A. 162. Contra, where the oral agreement to assume a mortgage would contradict a covenant of general warranty. Rooney v. Koe-nig, 80 Minn. 483; 83 N. W. 399.

11 Ford v. Savage, 111 Mich. 144; 69 N. W. 240.

12 Lathrop v. Humble, - Wis. -; 97 N. W. 905.

13 Latimer v. Latimer, 53 S. C. 483; 31 S. E. 304.

14 Thompson v. Cody, 100 Ga. 771; 28 S. E. 669.

15Galvin v. Ry., 180 Mass. 587; 62 N. E. 961. Contra, on the theory that this is a contractual term. Atchison, etc., Ry. v. Vanordstrand, 67 Kan. 386; 73 Pac. 113.

16 Schubkagel v. Dierstein, 131 Pa. St. 46; 6 L. R. A. 481; 18 Atl. 1059.

17Jones v. Rhea, 122 N. C. 721; 30 S. E. 346.

18 Merchants' National Bank v. Vandiver, 104 Ga. 165; 30 S. E. 050.

19 Breitenwischer v. Clough, 111 Mich. 6; 66 Am. St. Rep. 372; 69 N. W. 88.

20Martin v. Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. Ap.), 66 S. W. 212; writ of error denied (Tex.), 67 S. W. 883.

21Timmier v. Liles, 58 S. C. 284; 36 S. E. 652.

22 Stone v. Minter, 111 Ga. 45; 50 L. R. A. 356; 36 S. E. 321.

23 Citizens', etc., Co. v. Babbitt, 71 Vt. 182; 44 Atl. 71.

24 Wolf v. Haslach, 65 Neb. 303: 91 N. W. 283.

25 Wright v. Stewart, 19 Wash. 179; 52 Pac. 1020.

26 Barnes v. Black, 193 Pa. St. 447; 74 Am. St. Rep. 694; 44 Atl. 550.

27 Platt v. Scribner, 18 Ohio C. C. 452.