4 Cocker v. Mfg. Co., 3 Sumn. (U. S.) 530; Coates v. Sangston. 5 Md. 121.

5 Harmon v. Michigan United Traction Co.. - Mich. - , 168 N. W. 521.

The duration of a contract may be shown by oral evidence, if the contract appears on its face to be incomplete in this regard. Breckenridge v. Hearne Timber Co., - Ark. - , 204 S. W. 981.

6 See Sec. 2151.

7 Breckenridge v. Hearne Timber Co., - Ark. - , 204 S. W. 981; Kaul v. American Telephone Co., 95 Kan. 1, 147 Pac. 1130.

8 Brown v. Wiley, 61 U. S. (20 How.) 442, 15 L. ed. 965.

9 Brown v. Wiley, 61 V. S. (20 How.) 442, 15 L. ed. 965.

10 Gray v. Anderson, 99 la. 342, 61 Am. St. Rep. 243, 68 N. W. 790.

11 Brandon Mfg. Co. v. Morse, 48 Vt. 322.

12 West-Winfree Tobacco Co. v. Waller, 66 Ark. 445, 51 S. W. 320.

13 Ferguson v. Arthur, 128 Mich. 297,

87 N. W. 259; Tufts v. Morris, 87 Mo. App. 98.

14 United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 205 U. S. 105. 51 L. ed. 731.

15 Harris v. Harris, 104 S. Car. 33,

88 S. E. 276.

16 Roberts v. Machine Co., 8 S. D. 579, 59 Am. St. Rep. 777, 67 N. W. 607.

17Haynes v. Wesley, 112 Ga. 668, 81 Am. St. Rep. 72, 37 S. E. 990.

18 Hanson v. Ounderson, 95 Wis. 613, 70 N. W. 827. So of a joint chattel mortgage. Williams Bros. Co. v. Hanmer, 132 Mich. 635, 94 N. W. 176.

19Powll v. Fraley, 98 Ga. 370, 26 S. E. 450.

A written contract to deliver two or more articles to one person can not be modified by evidence tending to show that the real intention of the parties was to deliver certain articles, each to certain specified persons.20 So in a contract by one person to support another,- where no place of support is fixed, and therefore the party to be supported may fix any reasonable place for receiving support, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the parties had agreed that such support was to be furnished at a fixed place.21 It has, however, been held under a contract of employment that where no specific place of performance is fixed, oral evidence of the intention of the parties direct is admissible to show on what locality they had agreed.22 So where no rate is fixed in a bill of lading, and accordingly a reasonable rate is implied, an oral agreement between the parties fixing the rate can not be enforced.23 A contract for the sale of property can not be modified by evidence of the intention of the parties that the seller should warrant that the price which he received was the price which he had paid for the property sold.24 A written contract of hire can not be contradicted by showing that the employer could terminate the contract at will.25 A contract of employment as a sales agent can not be modified by showing the actual agreement of the parties that the agent bound himself to sell a certain amount of goods.26 A contract for the sale of a business can not be modified by showing the agreement of the parties that such business could be operated with profit by the purchaser.27 A contract to convey land "for all legitimate railroad purposes," can not be modified by showing an oral agreement not to erect an eating-house or hotel thereon;28 nor can a lease for "business purposes" be modified by a contemporaneous oral agreement not to use the premises as a saloon.29 A contract for the sale of land, which states the area as an estimate, and provides for a survey to ascertain the exact amount, can not be varied by contemporaneous oral agreement that this estimate was to be taken as correct for purposes of tendering the price of the property.30 So a deed of land in which the description is such as to carry future accretions on the side bounded by a river, can not be modified by a prior oral contract that accretions should not pass to the grantee.31 A contract for the purchase of electric power can not be modified by evidence that the purchaser had agreed not to operate a gas engine.32 If a gas engine is in law part of the realty, evidence of the intention of the parties to pass such engine by a bill of sale of the personal property, and not by a deed of realty, can not be shown as by offering in evidence a list of personalty in which such engine was enumerated.33 If a deed in legal effect gives to the grantee the right to collect rent falling due thereafter, such conveyance can not be modified by evidence to show the intention of the parties that the grantor should receive such rent.34 Under a contract for the sale of goods "f. o. b.," the intention of the parties that the buyer should obtain the cars, can not be considered in jurisdictions in which the plain import of such language is that the seller should obtain the cars.35 If, by the terms of the contract, the quantity of the subject-matter within certain limits depends upon the discretion of one of the parties, evidence that the parties had agreed upon a certain quantity can not be regarded as part of the contract.36 A contract by A to transport all the goods that B may furnish within a certain period of time, can not be varied by showing that the real understanding of the parties was that B should furnish a certain quantity.37 The parol evidence rule prevents evidence to vary warranties which are implied from the written contract as fully as it operates to protect express warranties.38 A written contract of employment can not be added to by showing an oral agreement that the employes should give bond.39 So a written contract to confess judgment and take a stay of execution, which in law required giving a surety on the stay-bond, can not be modified by an oral contract that no surety should be required.40 So a contract "to deliver to the order of A $800 (less 20 per cent, discount) in wall paper at wholesale price," means wholesale price at the time of demand, and an oral provision that the wholesale price fixed by a price card given to the vendee when the contract was made, containing the prices intended, was unenforceable.41 Under a written lease conveying a dining-room situated in a hotel, the lessee agreed to furnish "board or meals, such as are served to the guests of the hotel, for three persons." This provision in legal effect meant any three suitable persons whom the lessor might designate; and the lessee could not show by oral contemporaneous agreement between himself and the lessor that it meant the housekeeper, the chambermaid and the porter.42 Under a written contract in escrow, by the terms of which A's note was to be delivered to B, when B delivered to A a certain track-laying machine then in the custody of X, who was asserting a lien thereon, A's expenses in getting such machine to be credited upon the note, B could not show an oral contract whereby A promised to take certain steps to obtain this machine from X.43 So a contract giving the right to construct a telephone over A's land generally, can not be shown by oral agreement to be limited to a particular part of the land.44 A covenant against incumbrances can not be modified by showing that the real agreement of the parties was that the purchaser should assume and pay certain incumbrances.45 Under such a covenant extrinsic evidence can not be regarded to show that the purchaser agreed to pay certain taxes,46 or street assessments,47 or that he had agreed to take such realty subject to an existing lease.48 A contract which is one, in legal effect, for the conveyance of certain realty only, can not be modified by showing that other property was to be included.49 A bond to secure release of defendant from custody, which, in legal effect, secures the judgment to be rendered in such action, can not be modified by showing that the obligor did not intend to be liable for such judgment.50

20 New Orleans Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Lott, 118 Miss. 57, 79 So. 1.

21 Tuttle v. Burgett, 63 O. S. 498, 53 Am. St. Rep. 649, 30 L. R. A. 214, 42 N. E. 427; Flinn v. Boso, 79 W. Va. 493, 92 S. E. 130. See Sec. 2196.

22Cook v. Todd (Ky.), 72 S. W. 779.

23 Louisville, etc., R. R. v. Wilson, 119 Ind. 352, 4 L. R. A. 244, 21 N. E. 341.

24 Carpenter v. Sugden, 231 Mass. 1, 119 N. E. 959

25Drennen v. Satterfleld, 119 Ala. 84, 24 So. 723.

28 Standard Scale & Supply Co. v. Reiter. 227 Fed. 414, 142 C. C. A 110.

27 Eblan v. Edwards, 145 Ga. 383, 89 S. E. 327.

28 Abraham v. Ry., 37 Or. 495, 82 Am. St. Rep. 779, 60 Pac. 899.

29 Harrison v. Howe, 109 Mich. 476, 67 N. W. 527.

30Starin v. Kraft, 174 111. 120, 50 N. E. 1059.

31 Gorton v. Rice, 153 Mo. 676, 55 S. W. 241.

32 Phoenix Pad Mfg. Co. v. Roth, 127 Md. 540, 96 Atl. 762.

33 State Security Bank v. Hoskins, 130 Ia. 339, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 376, 106 N. W. 764.

34 Taylor v. Kennedy, 228 Mass. 390, 117 N. E. 901.

35 Vogt v. Rchienebeck, 122 Wis. 491, 106 Am. St. Rep. 989, 67 L. R. A. 756,

100 N. W. 820.

36 Johnson v. Tackitt, 173 Ky. 406, 191 S. W. 117.

37 Johnson v. Tackitt, 173 Ky. 406,

101 S. W. 117.

38 Bond v. Perrin, 145 Ga. 200, 88 S. E. 954.

39 Kerr v. Sanders, 122 N. Car. 635, 29 S. E. 943.

40Mayse v. Briggs, 40 Tenn. (3 Head.) 36.

41 Fawkner v. Wall Paper Co., 88 Ia. 169, 45 Am. St. Rep. 230, 55 N. W. 200

42Rector v. Bernaschina, 64 Ark. 650, 44 S. W. 222.

43Pacific National Bank v. Bridge Co., 23 Wash. 425, 63 Pac. 207. (The legal effect of the written contract was not to bind either party to obtain the machine, but to give B the option to furnish the machine and get the note, or to give up the note.)

44 Southern, etc., Co. v. Harris, 117 Ga. 1001, 44 S. E. 885.

45Hardage v. Durrett, 110 Ark. 63, L. R. A. 1916E, 211, 160 S. W. 883; In re Johnson's Estate, 177 Mich. 500, L. R. A. 1916E, 217, 143 N. W. 627; Mandler v. Starks, 35 Okla. 809, L. R. A. 1916E, 213, 131 Pac. 912.

46Hardage v. Durrett, 110 Ark. 63, L. R. A. 1916E, 211, 160 S. W. 883.

47 In re Johnson's Estate, 177 Mich. 500, L. R. A. 1916E, 217, 143 N. W. 627.

48 Mandler v. Starks, 35 Okla. 809, L. R. A. 1916E, 213, 131 Pac. 912.