15 Oliver v. Brown, 102 Ga. 157, 29 S. E. 159; Jacob Tome Institution v. Davis, 87 Md. 591, 41 Atl. 166.

16 Anderson v. Ins. Co., 112 Ga. 532, 37 S. E. 766.

17Daly v. Kingston, 177 Mass. 312. 58 N. E. 1109; Norwood v. Lathrop, 178 Mass. 208, 59 N. E. 650.

18 Rail & River Coal Co. v. Paisley. 233 Fed. 337, 147 C. C. A. 273; Buxton v. Colver, 102 Kan. 871, 171 Pac. 1158; Cohen v. Edinberg, 225 Mass. 177, 114 N. E. 294.

19Rail & River Coal Co. v. Paisley, 233 Fed. 337. 147 C, C. A. 273.

20Buxton v. Colver, 102 Kan. 871. 171 Par. 115S; Cohen v. Edinberg, 225 Mass. 177, 114 N. E. 294.

21Leavitt v. Dimmick, 86 Or. 278, 168 Pac. 292.

22Muir v. Morris, 80 Or. 378, 157 Pae. 785 [denying rehearing, Muir v. Morris, 80 Or. 378. 154 Pac. 1171.

23Gunter v. Road Improvement District, 125 Ark. 492, 189 S. W. 53.

24 Wear-Well Pants Co. v. West, 175 N. Car. 565, 96 S. E. 33.

25 Emerson-Bran t i n g h a m Co. v. Lyons, 102 Kan. 733, 172 Pac. 513.

26Hilgar v. Miller, 42 Or. 552, 72 Pac. 319.

27Boushalll v. Stronach, 172 N. Car. 273, 00 S. E. 198.

28Loth v. Friederick, 05 Mich. 598, 55 N. W. 369.

29Prouty v. Adams, 141 Cal. 304, 74 Pac. 845.

30Walker v. Price, 62 Kan. 327, 84 Am. St. Rep. 392, 62 Pac. 1001.

31 John Vittuci Co. v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 238 Fed. 1005; Whitnack v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 82 Neb. 464, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1011, 118 N. W. 67.

32 Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v Fairburn Marble Co., 145 Ga. 708, 89 S. E. 817.

33 Strong v. Wells Fargo, 39 S. P. 389, 164 N. W. 967.

34 McLeod v. Hunt, 128 Mich. 124, 87 N. W. 101; O'Neal v. McLeod (Miss.), 28 So. 23.

35Kelley v. Thompson, 175 Maas. 427, 56 N. E. 713.

36 Standard Fireproofing Co. v. Fire-proofing Co., 177 Mo. 559, 76 S. W. 1008.

37 Russell v. Morgan, 24 R. I. 134, 52 Atl. 809.

38 Appeal of Cornwall, etc., R. R., 125 Pa. St. 232, 11 Am. St. Rep. 889, 17 Atl. 427.

39 Camden, etc., Ry. v. Adams, 62 N. J. Eq. 656, 51 Atl. 24.

40McElveen v. Ry., 109 Ga. 249, 77 Am. St. Rep. 371, 34 S. E. 281.

41 Webster v. Paul, 10 O. S. 531.

42 Louisville, etc., Ry. v. Duncan, 137 Ala. 446, 34 So. 988.

43Kelsey v. Continental Casualty Co., 131 Ia. 207, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1014, 108 N. W. 221; Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Boston Insurance Co., 131 Minn. 19, 154 N. W. 515.

44Kelsey v. Continental Casualty Co., 131 Ia. 207, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1014, 108 N. W. 221; Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Boston Insurance Co., 131 Minn. 19, 154 N. W. 515.

45 Chamberlain v. Ins. Co., 109 Wis. 4, 83 Am. St. Rep. 851, 85 N. W. 128.

46Walton v. Ins. Co., 116 N. Y. 317, 5 L. R. A. 677. 22 N. E. 443.

47 Frost's, etc., Works v. Ins. Co., 37 Minn. 300, 5 Am. St. Rep. 846, 34 N. W. 35.

48 Burton v. Ins. Co., 119 Ind. 207, 12 Am. St. Rep. 405, 21 N. E. 746.

49 Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 102 Fed. 19, 41 C. C. A. 263 [reversing, 101 Fed. 33].

50Arguimbau v. Ins. Co., 106 La. 139, 30 So. 148.

51 Singmaster v. Robinson, 181 Ia. 522, 164 N. W. 776.

52Neff v. Rubin, 161 Wis. 511, 154 N. W. 976.

53Smith v. Bank, 171 Mass. 178, 50 N. E. 545; First National Bank v. Sappington, - Okla. - , 157 Pac. 937.

54 Cooper v. Robertson Investment Co., 117 Miss. 108, 77 So. 953.

55 United States. Wagner v. Kohn. 225 Fed. 718, 140 C. C. A. 592.

California. Leonard v. Miner, 120 Cal. 403, 52 Pac. 655.

Kansas. German-American State Bank v. Watson, 99 Kan. 686, 163 Pac. 637.

Massachusetts. Henry Wood's Sons Co. v. Schaefer, 173 Mass. 443, 73 Am. St. Rep. 305, 53 N. E. 881.

Ohio. Lillie v. Bates, 3 Ohio C. C. 94, 2 Ohio C. D. 54.

Oklahoma. Bailey v. Lankford, 54 Okla. 692, 154 Pac. 672.

Wisconsin. In re Winzenreid's Estate, 165 Wis. 63, 160 N. W. 1064.

This rule, of course, assumes that the note is in other respects valid. If there is in fact no consideration for the note, this may, of course, be shown. See Sec. 537 and 651.

56In re Winzenreid's Estate, 165 Wis. 63, 160 N. W. 1064.

57 Wagner v. Kohn, 225 Fed. 718, 140 C. C. A. 592.

58 Bailey v. Lankford, 54 Okla. 692, 154 Pac. 672.

59 Rhodes v. Owens, 101 Wash. 324, 172 Pac. 241.

60Dominion National Bank v. Manning, 60 Kan. 729, 57 Pac. 949 [questioning and distinguishing, Higgins v Ridgway, 153 N. Y. 130, 47 N. E. 32; Breneman v. Furniss, 90 Pa. St. 186, 35 Am. Rep. 651].

61 Mills County National Bank v. Perry, 72 la. 13, 2 Am. St. Rep. 228, 33 N. W. 341.

62 Bergman v, Evans, 92 Wash. 158, 158 Pac. 961.

63 Cook v. Brown, 62 Mich. 473,4 Am. St. Rep. 870, 29 N. W. 46. [No mistake in execution being shown.]

64 Kulenkamp v. Groff, 71 Mich. 675, 15 Am. St. Rep. 283, 1 L.' R. A. 594, 40 N. W. 57; German-American State Bank v. Watson, 99 Kan. 686, 163 Pac. 637.

65Mallory v. Fitzgerald's Estate, 69 Neb. 312, 95 N. W. 601.

66 La Fayette County Monument Corporation v. Magoon, 73 Wis. 627, 3 L. R. A. 761, 42 N. W. 17.

If a son receives property from his father, and gives his father his note in return therefor, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the property was given as an advancement, and that the note was intended merely as a receipt therefor.66 In some jurisdictions, however, it has been held that extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that a note given under such circumstances is intended as evidence of an advancement, and that it was not intended to create a primary and unconditional liability.69 The maker of such note has been permitted to show by extrinsic evidence that the transfer of such property was intended as an advancement and that the note was not to be paid unless it was necessary to pay the grantor's debts.70 This can be reconciled with the general rule only on the theory that under the facts of the transaction there was no consideration for the note.71 So extrinsic evidence that an obligor signed a bond under an agreement with the obligee that he should not be liable thereon, is inadmissible.72 So a written receipt for wheat, with the promise to pay therefor, can not be contradicted by showing that the person receiving the wheat did so merely as a bailee.73 So a written contract for the sale of a machine can not be contradicted by showing that it was merely a rental on commission.74 A written contract for the payment of money can not be contradicted by showing that it was to be performed in some other manner,75 as by showing that it was to be paid in work,76 or in property,77 as in building material,78 or In corporate stock,79 or in lots and in corporate stock,80 or in accounts against third person,81 or in merchandise.82 So in an action on a lease to recover rent, evidence is inadmissible to show that part of the rent was to be paid to the lessor by the lessee's furnishing him with table-board.83 So in an action on a note evidence is inadmissible to show that such note was to be paid by the maker's collecting certain claims for the payee at a certain commission, which commission would amount to the face of the note.84 Such a contract may, however, be the basis of a counterclaim if broken. So a contract that a note is to be paid in part by having damages due the maker arising out of another transaction credited on the note, is unenforceable.85 A covenant which provides for giving a mortgage for value upon an exchange of property, can not be modified by showing a contemporaneous oral contract to the effect that the mortgage thus given should not be paid until the mortgagee had paid a mortgage upon the land which was conveyed to him in such transaction.86 An unequivocal provision of a note which identifies the payee, can not be contradicted,87 as by showing that a beneficiary was intended other than the beneficiary who is named in a note payable to trustee,88 or by showing that one of two joint payees was the real owner of the amount which was paid to the maker by both of such payees.89 If a note is payable in money, an oral contract that it is payable in certain bank notes not legal tender is unenforceable,90 though a contract to redeem in gold the bank bills for which the note was given is enforceable.91 An exception to this rule was recognized in contracts made during the Civil War in Southern states, in which the weight of authority-recognizes the right of the parties to the contract to show that they intended payment in money of the United States,92 or in money of the Confederate states.93 Whether this is an illustration of evidence showing the intention of the parties direct, or whether it is merely an illustration of the admissibility of evidence showing the surrounding facts and circumstances, to enable the court to place itself in the position of the parties to the contract, and thus to determine what medium of payment they contemplated is a question not always easy to determine from an examination of the opinions of the courts. So a written contract to pay money, which by its terms imports a general personal liability, can not be shown to be a contract to pay out of a particular fund,94 as out of the profits of the transaction in connection with which the written promise was made,95 or out of dividends on the stock for which the note was given.96 So if a note is payable to the firm of A and B, it can not be shown that A was intended as the real payee.97 If a building contract gives exact dimensions, such provisions can not be contradicted by evidence that the property owner had no definite idea as to the size of such building.98 An instrument which purports to be a new contract can not be contradicted by showing that it was an assignment intended as performance of the original contract.99