Idaho. Allen v. Kitchen, 16 Ida. 133, L. R. A. 1917A, 563, 100 Pac. 1052.

Illinois. Barrett v. Stow, 15 111. 423.

Indiana. Baldwin v. Boyce, 152 Ind. 46, 51 N. E. 334.

Kentucky. Dotson v. Fletcher, 171 Ky. 589, 188 S. W. 642.

Maine. American Mercantile Exchange v. Blunt, 102 Me. 128, 120 Am. St. Rep. 463, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 414, 66 Atl. 212; Ross v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 114 Me. 287, 96 Atl. 223.

Massachusetts. Stoops v. Smith, 10G Mass. 63, 1 Am. Rep. 85, 97 Am. Dec. 76; Swett v. Shumway, 102 Mass. 365,

3 Am- Rep. 471; Harris v. North American Insurance Co., 190 Mass. 361, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1137, 77 N. E. 493; Carpenter v. Sugden, 231 Mass. 1, 119 N. E. 959.

.Michigan. Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 107 Mich. 51, 64 N. W. 948.

Minnesota. Reeves v. Cress, 80 Minn. 466, 83 N. W. 443; J. G. Shaw, etc., Co. v. Maybell, 86 Minn. 241, 90 N. W. 392.

Mississippi. Albritton v. Fairley, 116 Miss. 705, 77 So. 651; Pearce v. Tharpe, 118 Miss. 107, 79 So. 69.

Nebraska. Drexel v. Murphy, 59

. Neb. 210, 80 N. W. 813; Harlan County v. Whitney, 65 Neb. 105, 90 N. W. 993.

Nevada. De Remer v. Anderson, 41 Nev. 287, 169 Pac. 737.

New York. Field- v. Munson, 47 N. Y. 221.

Ohio. Hurd v. Robinson, 110. S. 232.

Pennsylvania. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Lippincott, 252 Pa. St. 112, 97 Atl. 201; Howard v. Innes, 253 Pa. St. 593, 98 Atl. 761.

South Carolina. State Agricultural & Mechanical Soc. v. Taylor, 104 S. Car. 167, 88 S. E. 372.

South Dakota. Elliott Supply Co. v. Ross, - S. D. - , 168 N. W. 58.

Tennessee. Dougherty v. Chestnutt, 86 Tenn. 1, 5 S. W. 444.

Utah. Brown v. Markland, 16 Utah 360, 67 Am. St. Rep. 629, 52 Pac. 597; Fayter v. North, 30 Utah 156, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 410, 83 Pac. 742; Wade v. Dorius, - Utah - , 173 Pac. 564.

Vermont. Hart v. Hammett, 18 Vt. 127; Noyes v. Canfield, 27 Vt. 79.

Virginia. Riner v. Lester, 121 Va, 563, 93 S. E. 594; Asberry v. Mitchell, 121 Va. 276, 93 S. E. 638.

Wisconsin. Lynch v. Henry, 75 Wis. 631, 44 N..W. 837; Pritchard v. Lewis, 125 Wis. 604, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 565, 104 N. W. 989.

See also, Sec. 2033 as to evidence of intention of parties concerning the meaning of the terms used.

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

3Bagley v. Sugar Co., 111 La. 249, 35 So. 539; Payson 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; Fosha v. O'Don-nell, 120 Wis. 336, 97 N. W. 924.

4 Fitzpatrick v. Commissioners, 26 Tenn. (7 Humph.) 224, 46 Am. Dec. 76.

5 McConaughy v. Wilsey, 115 Ia. 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 State Agricultural & Mechanical Soc. v. Taylor, 104 S. Car. 167, 88 S. E. 372.

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

8 Cannon v. Moody, 78 Minn. 68, 80 X. W. 842.

9 Hanks v. Flynn, 108 Ia. 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.")

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

11 Haskell v. Tukesbury, 02 Me. 551, 69 Am. St. Rep. 529, 43 Atl. 500.

12Waldheim v. Miller, 97 Wis. 300, 72 N. W. 869. (As to show that it was for future advances.)

13 Blackburn v. Thompson, 127 Ark. 438, 193 S. W. 74.

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

15McManus v. Donohoe, 175 Mass. 308, 56 N. E. 291.

16 Ross v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 114 Me. 287, 96 Atl. 223.

17 Elliott Supply Co. v. Ross, - S. D. - , 16S N. W. 58.

18 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.

19Dorris v. King (Tenn. Ch. App.), 54 S. W. 683.

20 Rib River Lumber Co. v. Ogilvie, 113 Wis. 482, 89 N. W. 483.

21 Carpenter v. Medford, 99 N. Car. 485, 6 Am. St. Rep. 535, 6 6. E, 785.

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

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

24 Harris v. North American Insurance Co., 190 Mass. 361, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1137, 77 N. E. 493.

25Sanders v. Cooper, 115 N. Y. 279, 12 Am. St. Rep. 801, 5 L. R. A. 63S [sub nomine, Landers v. Cooper, 22 N. E. 212].

Contra, where the agent wrote the application, describing other property than that insured. Alabama, etc., Inn. Co. v. Minchener, 133 Ala. 632, 32 So. 225.

28 Alabama. Reynolds v. Trawick, 197 Ala. 165, 72 So. 378.

Georgia. Ainslie v. Eason, 107 Ga. 747, 33 S. E. 711; Tumlin v. Perry, 108 Ga. 520, 34 S. E. 171; King v. Brice, 145 Ga. 65, 88 S. E. 960; Morris v. Beckum. 145 Ga. 562, 89 S. E. 704; Swint v Swint, 147 Ga. 467, 94 S. E. 571.

Kansas. Powers v. Scharling, 61 Kan. 339, 67 Pac. 820.

Kentucky. Dotson. v. Fletcher, 171 Ky. 589, 188 S. W. 642.

Louisiana. Murphy v. Robinson, 50 La. Ann. 213, 23 So. 323.

Massachusetts. Hurley v. Brown, 98 Mass. 545, 96 Am. Dec. 671.

Mississippi. Albritton v. Fairley, 116 Miss. 705, 77 So. 651; Pearce v. Tharpc, 118 Miss. 107, 79 So. 69.

New York. Waring v. Ayres, 40 N. Y. 357.

Pennsylvania. Howard v. Innes, 253 Pa. St. 593, 98 Atl. 761.

Rhode Island. Lee v. Stone, 21 R. I. 123 42 Atl. 717.

Virginia. Riner v. Lester, 121 Va. 563, 93 S. E. 594; Asberry v. Mitchell, 121 Va. 276, 93 S. E. 638.

27Stamphill v. Bullen, 121 Ala. 250. 25 So. 928; Hereford v. Hereford, 131 Ala. 573, 32 So. 620, 651; McMaster v. Morse, 18 Utah 21, 55 Pac. 70.

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

29Lulay v. Barnes, 172 Pa. St. 331, 34 Atl. 32.

39Cottingham v. Hill. 119 Ala. 353, 72 Am. St. Rep. 923, 24 So. 552; Ed-ward v. Deans. 125 N. Car. 59, 34 S. E. 105.

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

32Gurvey v. Parkhurst, 127 Mich. 368. 86 X. W. 802.

33 Brown v. Ward, 110 Ia. 123, 81 N. W. 247.

34 Hancock v. Watson, 18 Cal. 137.

Extrinsic evidence may be introduced to rebut the prima facie inferences as to the meaning of the parties which may be drawn from the rest of the instrument.38 While it may be inferred that realty is situated in the town or city at which the contract for the sale thereof is dated, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that the street upon which the contract recites that the realty is situated does not exist in such town or city.39 Extrinsic evidence as to the appurtenances which the parties intend to pass with realty is admissible if the conveyance is silent as to the appurtenances which are to pass,40 or if it describes them only as "privileges and appurtenances,"41 or if the description thereof in the deed is ambiguous.42

If the description in the contract or conveyance 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.43 If a conveyance or mortgage applies equally to any one of a number of different tracts, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show which tract was intended by the parties.44 A provision for the sale of "any part," of certain premises has been held to be so indefinite that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to identify the subject-matter.45 A contract to convey realty which identifies it by the lot number and addition, but which does not identify it by the state, county or political district, or by the town or city in which it is located, is so indefinite that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to supply the omission.46 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.47 Identification can not be made the means of contradiction.48

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

36Stamets v. Deniston, 193 Pa. St. 548, 44 Atl. 575.

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

38Kilday v. Schancupp, 91 Conn. 29, L. R. A. 1917A, 151, 98 Atl. 335.

39Kilday v. Schancupp, 91 Conn. 29, L. R. A. 1917A, 151, 98 Atl. 335.

40 Wade v. Dorius, - Utah - , 173 Pac. 564.

41 Fayter v. North, 30 Utah 156, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 410, 83 Pac. 742.

42Pritchard v. Lewis, 125 Wis. 604, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 565, 104 N. W. 989.

43 Georgia. Gatins v. Angier, 104 Ga. 386, 30 S. E. 876.

Idaho. Allen v. Kitchen, 16 Ida. 133. L. R. A. 1917A, 563, 100 Pac. 1052.

Nevada. De Remer v. Anderson, 41 Nev. 2S7, 169 Pac. 737.

Oklahoma. Ferguson v. Blackwell, 8 Okla 489, 58 Pac. 647.

Tennessee. Denison-Gholson Drv Goods Co. v. Hill, 135 Tenn. 60, 185 S. W. 723.

44 Denison-Gholson Dry Goods Co. v. Hill, 135 Tenn. 60, 185 S. W. 723.