If the written contract is ambiguous in indicating the subject-matter of the contract, extrinsic evidence is admissible to identify it.1 Thus extrinsic evidence is admissible to show

9 Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Me. 551; 69 Am. St. Rep. 529; 43 Atl. 500.

10 Morgan v. Lake View Co., 97 Wis. 275; 72 N. W. 872.

11 Wolff v. Elliott, 68 Ark. 326; 57 S. W. 1111.

12Scanlan v. Wright, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 523; 25 Am. Dee. 344.

13 Leach v. Dodson, 64 Tex. 185.

14 Holmes v. Jarrett, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 506. (In either case, the grantee would take in trust for the partnership.)

15 Union Pacific R. R. v. Durant, 95 U. S. 576.

1Cowen v. Truefitt (1898), 2 Ch.

551; affirmed (1899), 2 Ch. 309; Reed v. Ins. Co., 95 U. S. 23; Bradley v. Packet Co., 13 Pet. (U. S.) 89; Edwards v. Bender, 121 Ala. 77; 25 So. 1010; Moore v. Paving Co., 118 Ala. 563; 23 So. 798; Fol-lendore v. Follendore, 110 Ga. 359; 35 S. E. 676; Barrett v. Stow, 15 111. 423; Baldwin v. Boyce, 152 Ind. 46; 51 N. E. 334; Stoops v. Smith, 100 Mass. 63; 1 Am. Rep. 85; 97 Am. Dec. 76; Swett v. Shumway, 102 Mass. 365; 3 Am. Rep. 471; Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 107 Mich. 51; 64 N. W. 948; J. G. Shaw, etc., Co. v. Maybell, 86 Minn. 241; 90 N. W. 392; Reeves v. Cress, what is included by the words "entire estate."2 It may be shown what "et cetera" includes.3 Thus extrinsic evidence is admissible to identify a debt,4 or a note.5 So in a contract to return a "due-bill," if the company did not issue a policy applied for, evidence is admissible to show that the "due-bill" was a note given for the premium of such policy.6 So in a contract to assume and pay the "debts" of a firm, it is permitted to show what are the debts of the firm,7 and to show that a debt appearing on the books of the firm is in fact the individual debt of one of the partners.8 So in a contract to assume and pay "claims of all persons who have performed labor upon, or furnished materials for us, in or on said property," evidence is admissible to show that claims are included.9 Even in a contract required to be proved by writing, oral evidence can be used to identify "the bills" guaranteed,10 or an "account" guaranteed.11 So where a deed is given as security for "money owing," extrinsic evidence is admissible to show what money was owing when the deed was delivered, and that this

80 Minn. 466; 83 N. W. 443; Field v. Munson, 47 N. Y. 221; Harlan County v. Whitney, 65 Neb. 105; 90 N. W. 993; Drexel v. Murphy, 59 Neb. 210; 80 N. W. 813; Hurd v. Robinson, 11 O. S. 232; Dougherty v. Chestnutt, 86 Tenn. 1; 5 S. W. 444; Brown v. Markland, 16 Utah 360; 67 Am. St. Rep. 629; 52 Pac. 597; Noyes v. Canfield, 27 Vt. 79; Hart v. Hammett, 18 Vt. 127; Lynch v. Henry, 75 Wis. 631; 44 N. W. 837.

2 Miles v. Miles, 78 Miss. 904; 30 So. 2.

3 Bagley v. Sugar Co., - La. -; 35 So. 539.

4Payson v. Lamson, 134 Mass. 593; 45 Am. Rep. 348; Manchester v. Bradner, 107 N. Y. 346; 1 Am. St. Rep. 829; 14 N. E. 405; Fitz-patrick v. Commissioners, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 224; 46 Am. Dec. 76; Fosha v. Prosser - Wis. -; 97 N. W. 924.

5 McConaughy v. Wilsey, 115 la. 589; 88 N. W. 1101; Robbins v. Klein, 60 O. S. 199; 54 N. E. 94; Hancock v. Melloy, 189 Pa. St. 569; 42 Atl. 292.

6 Andrews v. Robertson, 111 Wis. 334; 87 Am. St. Rep. 870; 54 L. R. A. 673; 87 N. W. 190.

7 Cannon v. Moody, 78 Minn. 68; 80 N. W. 842.

8 Hanks v. Flynn, 108 la. 165; 78 N. W. 839. (Even under a contract to assume debts of the firm "as shown by the books and invoices of the firm this day.")

9 Brown v. Markland, 16 Utah 360; 67 Am. St. Rep. 629; 52 Pac. 597.

10 Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Me. 551; 69 Am. St. Rep. 529; 43 Atl. 500.

11Waldheim v. Miller, 97 Wis. 300; 72 N. W. 869. (As to show that it was for future advances.) debt was intended even if incurred after the date of the deed.12 So where two writs of replevin issued for the same property and two replevin bonds are given, evidence is admissible to show which bond was given for which writ.13 So in a sale of peaches to be grown in "sundry orchards," in two counties named,14 or a contract to sell all the timber on "their lands,"15 evidence is admissible to show what land the parties intended. So in a sale of a certain lot of logs, evidence is admissible to show what logs were intended, and hence that the amount of lumber was overestimated.16 So evidence is admissible to identify "nine walnut trees."17 So extrinsic evidence is admissible to identify the property referred to in an insurance policy, as to show what was meant by "shed and additions attached,18 or in a policy insuring a "cold storage warehouse," to show that a shed was part of the warehouse.19 Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show that the property insured was a different piece of property from that described in the policy, if the action is brought on the policy.20 In a contract for the sale of realty, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show what realty conforms to the description in the written contract, and thus to show what realty the parties intended to contract for.21 Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the actual boundaries of the tract in question,22 as to show what is meant by the "point" of a cliff, and "thence with the cliff."23 So in a contract to sell "coal in the northern hill as far as the center," extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the hill on grantor's land intended by this contract.24 So, if land is described by its ownership, and approximate, though not exact, location,25 as where in a contract of sale the name of the owner is given and it is said to front on Waters Road,26 or by its popular name,27 extrinsic evidence is admissible to show what land was intended. Thus under a contract for the sale of a half interest in "Linn Grove Mills and the land thereunto belonging," extrinsic evidence is admissible to identify the land.28 Under a mortgage of "the quartz mill and lode, formerly owned by" a specified person, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show what property answering to such description was owned by such person.29 So in a contract to lease a house described by its ownership, and the street on which it is located, extrinsic evidence is admissible to supply the house number.30 So in a contract whereby A authorized B to sell certain lots, agreeing that when B had sold enough lots to realize five thousand five hundred dollars A would convey to B the remainder of the lots, B could introduce parol evidence to show what lots he had sold, in order to show what the remaining lots were.31 So under a contract to divert the waters of a given brook, it may be shown that both branches thereof were intended, neither having a name.32 If the description in the contract is not sufficient when considered in connection with evidence of the ownership and location of the land to identify it, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show what land the parties intended to contract for.33 Such a contract is incomplete on its face, and the identification of the subject-matter does not therefore violate the parol evidence rule. The contract, however, is one controlled by the statute of frauds, which forbids such use of oral evidence. Still less can it be shown that a different tract was intended.34 Identification cannot be made the means of contradiction.35

12 Swedish - American National Bank v. Bank, 76 Minn. 409; 79 N. W. 399. (But evidence to show that the deed was intended to secure advances made after its delivery is inadmissible.)

13 McManus v. Donohoe, 175 Mass. 308; 56 N. E. 291.

14 Ontario, etc., Association v. Fruit Packing Co., 134 Cal. 21; 86 Am. St. Rep. 231; 53 L. R. A. 681; 66 Pac. 28. And see Reinstein v. Roberts, 34 Or. 87; 75 Am. St. Rep. 564; 55 Pac. 90.

15Dorris v. King (Tenn. Ch. App.), 54 S. W. 683.

16 Rib River Lumber Co. v. Ogil-vie, 113 Wis. 482; 89 N. W. 483.

17 Carpenter v. Medford, 99 N. C. 495; 6 Am. St. Rep. 535; 6 S. E. 785.

18 Cummins v. Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 61; 46 Atl. 902.

19 Boak Fish Co. v. Assurance Co., 84 Minn. 419; 87 N. W. 932.

20 Sanders v. Cooper, 115 N. Y. 279; 12 Am. St. Rep. 801; 5 L. R. A. 638; sub nomine, Landers v. Cooper, 22 N. E. 212. Contra, where the agent wrote the application, describing other property than that insured. Alabama, etc., Ins. Co. v. Minchener, 133 Ala. 632; 32 So. 225.

21Tumlin v. Perry, 108 Ga. 520; 34 S. E. 171; Ainslie v. Eason, 107 Ga. 747; 33 S. E. 711; Powers v. Scharling, 64 Kan. 339; 67 Pac. 820; Murphy v. Robinson, 50 La. Ann. 213; 23 So. 323; Hurley v. Brown, 98 Mass. 545; 96 Am. Dec. 671; Waring v. Ayres, 40 N. Y.

357; Lee v. Stone, 21 R. I. 123; 42 Atl. 717.

22 Hereford v. Hereford, 131 Ala. 573; 32 So. 620, 651; Stamphill v. Bullen, 121 Ala. 250; 25 So. 928; McMaster v. Morse, 18 Utah 21; 55 Pac. 70.

23 Hall v. Conlee (Ky.), 62 S. W. 899.

24Lulay v. Barnes, 172 Pa. St. 331; 34 Atl. 52.

25 Cottingham v. Hill, 119 Ala. 353; 72 Am. St. Rep. 923; 24 So. 552; Edwards v. Deans, 125 N. C. 59; 34 S. E. 105.

26Mohr v. Dillon, 80 Ga. 572; 5 S. E. 770. (Decided under the Georgia statute.)

27 Garvey v. Parkhurst, 127 Mich. 368; 86 N. W. 802.

28 Brown v. Ward, 110 la. 123; 81 N. W. 247.

29 Hancock v. Watson, 18 Cal. 137.

30Bulkley v. Devine, 127 111. 406; 3 L. R. A. 330; 20 N. E. 16.

31 Stamets v. Deniston, 193 Pa. St. 548; 44 Atl. 575.

32 Petrie v. Hamilton College, 158 N. Y. 458; 53 N. E. 216.