The question of what facts and circumstances, outside of the words of a contract under seal, can be considered in connection with such words, as forming a real part of the contract, is in many respects the same question as that presented in determining what facts and circumstances, outside of the words of a simple written contract, can he considered as a part thereof. The two questions will, therefore, for the most part, be considered together.1 There are, however, certain special topics in which the law of the sealed contract is different from that of the simple written contract, on account of the peculiar force of the seal. These topics will, therefore, be discussed separately in the following sections. The use of these facts outside of the words of the contract is referred to as "extrinsic evidence." As will be seen later2 this is a very poor name to express the idea, as it is rarely evidence in the proper sense, any more than the contract itself is evidence, and it is often not extrinsic to the contract, though it is not contained in the writing. It is used, however, because it is one of the terms commonly employed by the courts in describing such facts and circumstances.3 The effect of a sealed contract as merger of prior rights and liabilities is elsewhere discussed.4

3 Smyth v. Lynch, 7 Colo. App. 383; 43 Pac. 670; Bless v. Jenkins, 129 Mo. 647; 31 S. W. 938.

4 Withers v. Greene, 9 How. (U. S.) 213; McCarty v. Beach, 10 Cal. 461; Williams v. Haynes, 27 la. 251; 1 Am. Rep. 268; Coyle v. Fowler, 3 J. J. Mar. (Ky.) 472; Baird V. Baird, 145 N. Y. 659; 28 L. R. A. 375; 40 N. E. 222; Gray v. Barton, 55 N. Y. 68; 14 Am. Rep. 181; Judy v. Louderman, 48 0. S. 562; 29 N. E. 181; McLean v. Houston, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.) 37 (41).

5 Solomon v. Kimmel, 5 Binn (Pa.) 232; Swift v. Hawkins, 1 Ball. (Pa.) 17; Mattock v. Gibson, 8 Rich. L. (S. C.) 437.

6 Rendleman v. Rendleman, 156 Ill. 568; 41 N. E. 223; Aller v. Al-ler, 40 N. J. L. 446. So at equity independent of statute. Meek v. Frantz, 171 Pa. St. 632; 33 Atl. 413.

7 Bender v. Been, 78 la. 283; 5 L. R. A. 596; 43 N. W. 216; Judy v. Louderman, 48 O. S. 562; 29 N. E. 181.

8 Bender v. Been, 78 la. 283; 5 L. R. A. 596; 43 N. W. 216.

9 Bradley v. Rogers, 33 Kan. 120; 5 Pac. 374; Garrett v. Land Co., 94 Tenn. 459; 29 S. W. 726; Murray v. Beal, 23 Utah 548; 65 Pac. 726.

10 See ante, this section.