3Maxson v. Ashland Iron Works, 85 Or. 345, 166 Pac. 37.

4 See Sec. 112211 et seq.

5Jilek v. Zahl, 162 Wis. 157, 155 N. W 900.

6 Connecticut F. Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 141 Fed. 877, 73 C. C. A. 111, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 758; Gainesville v. Jaudon, 145 Ga. 299, 89 S. E. 210; Jersey City v. Flynn, 74 N. J. Eq. 104, 70 Atl. 497.

"It is a common error to suppose that these are rigid principles of law, the severity of which will be mitigated by a court of equity, and that the party who feels their operation has nothing to do but to change his ground and get into the climate of the chan-celor to meet with different treatment. This, however will be found a vain and fruitless escape." Baugh v. Ramsey, 20 Ky. (4 T. B. Mon.) 155. 157.

7 Smith v. Vose & Sons Piano Co., 194 Mass. 193, 120 Am. St. Rep. 539, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 966, 80 N. E. 527; American Potato Co. v. Jenette Bros. Co., 172 N. Car. 1, 89 S. E. 791. See 2153.

8 Smith v. Vose & Sons Piano Co., 194 Mass. 193, 120 Am. St. Rep. 539, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 966. 80 N. E. 527; American Potato Co. v. Jenette Bros. Co., 172 N. Car. 1, 89 S. E. 791; Leavitt v. Dimick, 86 Or. 278, 168 Pac. 292.

9 United States. Simonton v. Shaw, 246 Fed. 683.

Kansas. Walsh v. Kansas Fuel Co., 102 Kan. 29, 169 Pac. 219.

Kentucky. Gabbard v. Sheffield, 179 Ky. 442, 200 S. W. 940.

North Dakota. Gilbert Mfg. Co. v. Bryan, - N. D. - , 166 N. W. 806.

Pennsylvania. Williams v. Notopolos, 259 Pa. St. 469, 103 Atl. 290. See Sec. 2171 et seq.

10 United States. California Bridge & Const. Co. v. United States, 60 Ct. Cl. 40; American & British Mfg. Co. v. United States. 60 Ct. Cl. 204.

Arizona. Smith v. Mosbarger, 18 Ariz. 19. 156 Pac. 79.

California. Smith-Booth-Usher Co. v. Los Angeles Ice & Cold Storage Co., 175 Cal 136, 165 Pac. 430.

District of Columbia. Kinney v. Mc-Nabb, 44 D. C. App. 340.

Iowa. Houge v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 174 Ia. 607, 156 N. W. 862

Kentucky. Citizens' Trust & Guaranty Co. v. Farmers' Bank. 166 Ky. 234. 179 S. W. 29; Scott v. Spurr. 169 Ky. 575, 184 S. W. 866; Kreitz v. Gal-lenstein. 170 Ky. 16, 185 S. W. 132.

Massachusetts. Doyle v. Dixon. 94 Mass. (12 All.) 576; Pike v. McIntosh, 167 Mass. 309. 45 N. E. 749.

Michigan. Holland City State Bank v. Meeuwsen. 192 Mich. 326, 158 N. W. 1032.

New Mexico. Locke v. Murdoch. 20 N. M. 522, L. R. A. 1917B, 267, 151 Pac. 298.

Oklahoma. Spaulding v. Howard, 51

Okla. 502, 152 Pac. 106; Futoransky v. Pope, 57 Okla. 755, 157 Pac. 905.

Pennsylvania. Hall's Appeal, 60 Pa. St. 458, 100 Am. Dec. 584.

Washington. Holt Mfg. Co. v. Broth-erton, 91 Wash. 354, 157 Pac. 849.

Wisconsin. Gilbert v. Stockman, 76 Wis. 62, 20 Am. St. Rep. 23, 44 N. W. 845.

11 Samuelaon v. Palmer, 96 Kan. 587, 152 Pac. 627; Lesem v. Harris, 102 Kan. 222, 169 Pac. 959; Holland City State Bank v. Meeuwsen, 192 Mich. 326, 158 N. W. 1032; Boston Piano & Music Co. v. Pontiac Clothing Co., 199 Mich. 141, 165 N. W. 856; Hagstrom v. McDougall, 131 Minn. 389, 155 N. W. 391; Anderson v. Upper Cuyuna Land Co., 132 Minn. 382, 157 N. W. 581; Gile v. Interstate Motor Car Co., 27 N. D. 108,

L. R. A. 1915B, 109. 145 N. W. 732. "A written contract can not be varied or contradicted by a prior or contemporaneous parol agreement between the parties." Garneau v. Cohn. 61 Neb. 500, 501, 85 N. W. 531 [eiting among other cases. Gerner v. Church. 43 Neb. 690, 62 N. W. 51; Quinn v. Moss, 45 Neb. 614. 63 N. W. 931: Commercial State Bank v. Antelope County, 48 Neb. 496. 67 N. W. 465: Sylvester v. Paper Co.. 55 Neb. 621. 75 N. W. 1092].

12 United States. Ryan v. Ohmer, 244

Fed. 31, - C. C. A. - .

Alabama. Davis v. Robert, 89 Ala. 402, 18 Am. St. Rep. 126. 8 So. 114.

Colorado. Franta v. Bartels, - Colo. - . 165 Pac. 769.

Illinois. Diederich v. Rose. 228 111. 610. 81 N. E. 1140.

This rule is often stated inaccurately in some such form as this: extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract.15 As we shall see hereafter,16 extrinsic evidence is often admissible to vary the contract, to the extent that the contract when read in connection with the admissible evidence has a different meaning from that which it would have had but for such evidence. Unless this result were expected, extrinsic evidence which explains the surrounding facts and circumstances, the relations of the parties, and the purpose underlying the transaction,17 would never be offered. The evidence which is forbidden by the rule is not extrinsic evidence in general, but extrinsic evidence of the intention direct of the parties to the contract, which is introduced to displace the intention set forth in the written contract, or to add further terms to a contract in writing which is apparently completed.

Kansas. Samuelson v. Palmer, 96 Kan. 587, 152 Pac. 627.

Kentucky. Kreitz v. Gallenstein, 170 Ky. 16. 185 S W. 132.

Mississippi. Cox v. Reed, 113 Miss, 188 74 So. 330.

New Jersey. Decker v. Smith, 88 N. 1 L. 630, 96 Atl. 915; Jersey City v. Flvnn, 74 N. J. Eq. 104, 70 Atl. 497.

New Mexico. Locke v. Murdoch, 20 V. M. 522, L. R. A. 1917B, 267, 151 Pac.

North Carolina. A. B. Farquhar Co. Hardy Hardware Co.. 174 N. Oar. 69. 93 S E. 922.

North Dakota. Gilbert Mfg. Co. v.

Brvan. - N. D. - , 166 N. W. 805.

Oklahoma. Deming Investment Co. v. Shawnee F. Ins. Co, 16 Okla 1, 4

L. R. A. (N.S) 607, 83 Pac. 918: Spaulding v. Howard, 51 Okla. 502, 152 Pac. 106.

Oregon. Muir v. Morris. 80 Or. 378, 154 Pac. 117 (rehearing denied. Muir v. Morris, 80 Or. 378. 157 Pac. 785].

South Carolina. Gill v. Ruggles, 104 S. Car. 461, 89 S E. 503.

Washington. Farley v. Letterman, 87 Wash. 641, 152 Pac. 515; Peterson v. Penny-Renton Clay & Coal Co., 89 Wash. 141. 154 Pac. 123.

West Virginia. Martin v. Ry., 48 W. Va. 542, 37 S. E. 563.

13Baugh v. Ramsey, 20 Ky. (4 T. B. Mon.) 155, 157.

14Staekpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 27, 30.