The parol evidence rule applies to contracts in which the parties have attempted to reduce all the terms to writing in one instrument which they have then executed as a written contract.1 Accordingly, the parol evidence rule applies to a contract of insurance,2 or to a building contract,3 or to a bill of lading,4 or to a written contract of subscription to corporate stock,5 or to a deed of realty,6 or to a contract for the sale,7 or exchange,8 or lease,9 of realty, or to a contract for the sale of personalty,10 or to a chattel mortgage,11 or to notes as far as they express contractual terms on their face,12 or to a contract with reference to the interest of the parties in a savings account,13 or to a surety bond,14 or to a written contract for work and labor which purports to be complete,15 or to a contract for the payment of a commission,16 or to a contract which affects the rights of the parties arising out of the marital relation,17 if such instruments show upon their face that the terms are contractual in character and if they purport to be complete.

1 United States. Lumber Underwriters v. Rife, 237 U. S. 606, 59 L. ed. 1140.

Alabama. Parker v. Law, 194 Ala. 693, 69 So. 870.

California. Smith v. Murphy, 168 Cat. 328, l43. Pac. 594.

Connecticut. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Thames Ferry Co., 82 Conn. 475. 74 Atl. 780.

Iowa. Kelsey v. Continental Casualty Co., 131 Ia. 207, 108 N. W. 221.

Kansas. Graham County Mill & Elevator Co. v. Saunders, 96 Kan. 459, 152 Pac. 622.

Maryland. Cowan v. Meyer, 125 Md. 450, 94 Atl. 18.

Massachusetts. Ewer v. Washington Insurance Co., 33 Mass. (16 Pick.) 502, 28 Am. Dec. 258; Fuller v. N. J. Magnan Co., 222 Mass. 530, 111 N. E. 399.

Nebraska. Whitnack v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 82 Neb. 464, 19 L. R. A. (N.S) 1011, 118 N. W. 67.

North Carolina. Boushall v. Stronach, 172 N. Car. 273, 90 S. E. 198.

Oklahoma. Huster v. Newkirk Creamery & Ice Co., 42 Okla. 440, L. R. A. 1915A, 390. 141 Pac. 790.

Ohio. Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Hook, 62 O. S. 256, 56 N. E. 906.

Oregon. Peters v. Queen City Ins. Co., 63 Or. 382 [subnomine, Peters & Roberts Furniture Co. v. Queen City Fire Ins. Co., 126 Pac. 1005].

Pennsylvania. Lowry v. Roy, 238 Pa. St. 9, 85 Atl. 986.

Utah. Johnson v. Geddes, 49 Utah 137, 161 Pac. 910.

West Virginia. Clarksburg Board of Trade Land Co. v. Davis, 77 W. Va. 70, 86 S. E. 929.

Wisconsin. Beers v. North Milwaukee Town Site Co., 93 Wis. 569, 67 N. W. 936; Rief v. Casualty Co., 131 Wis. 368, 111 N. W. 502.

Wyoming. Reynolds v. Morton, 23 Wyom. 528, 154 Pac 325.

2 United States. Lumber Underwriters v. Rife, 237 U. S. 605, 5ft L. ed. 1140.

Connecticut. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Thames Ferry Co., 82 Conn. 475, 74 Atl. 780.

Iowa. Kelsey v. Continental Casualty Co., 131 Ia. 207, 108 N. W. 221.

Massachusetts. Ewer v. Washington Ins. Co., 33 Mass. (16 Pick.) 502, 28 Am. Dec. 258.

Ohio. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Hook, 62 O. S. 256, 56 N. E. 906.

Oklahoma. Brown v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 52 Okla. 392, 153 Pac. 173.

Oregon. Peters v. Queen City Fire Ins. Co., 63 Or. 382 [sub nomine, Peters & Roberts Furniture Co. v. Queen City Fire Ins. Co., 126 Pac. 1005]; Mercer v. Germania Fire Insurance Co., 88 Or. 410, 171 Pac. 412.

Virginia. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. W. H. Roberts Lumber Co., 119 Va. 479, 89 S. E. 945.

Wisconsin. Rief v. Continental Casualty Co., 131 Wis. 368, 111 N. W. 502.

3 California. Smith v. Murphy, 168 Cal. 328, 143 Pac. 594.

Maryland. Cowan v. Meyer, 125 Md. 450, 94 Atl. 18.

Massachusetts. Fuller v. N. J. Mag-nam Co., 222 Mass. 530, 111 N. E. 399.

Pennsylvania. Lowry v. Roy, 238 Pa. St. 9, 85 Atl. 986.

Wisconsin. Beers v. North Milwaukee Town Site Co., 93 Wis. 569, 67 N. W. 936.

4 John Vittuci Co. v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 238 Fed. 1005; Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v. Fairburn Marble Co., 145 Ga. 708, 89 S. E. 817; Whitnack v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 82 Neb. 464, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1011, 118 N. W 67; Strong v. Wells Fargo, 39 S. D. 389, 164 N. W. 967.

5 Kansas. Graham County Mill & Elevator Co. v. Saunders, 96 Kan. 459, 152 Pac. 622.

North Carolina. Boushall v. Stron-ach, 172 N. Car. 273, 90 S. E. 198.

Oklahoma. Huster v. Newkirk Creamery & Ice Co., 42 Okla. 440, L. R. A. 1915A, 390, 141 Pac. 790.

Washington. Bergman v. Evans, 92 Wash. 158, 158 Par. 961.

West Virginia. Clarksburg Board of Trade Land Co. v. Davis, 77 W. Va. 70, 86 S. E. 929.

6 Harman v. Dry Fork Colliery Co., SO W. Va. 780, 94 S. E. 355.

7Johnson v. Geddes, 49 Utah 137, 161 Pac. 910.

8 Rampton v. Cole, - Utah - , 172 Pac. 477.

9 Farley v. Letterman, 87 Wash. 641, 152 Pac. 515.

10 Alabama. Manchester Sawmills Co. v. A. L. Arundel Co., 197 Ala. 505, 73 So. 24.

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

California. Budd v. Hughes, - Cal. - . 171 Pac. 287.

Oklahoma. Futoransky v. Pope, 57 Okla. 755, L. R. A. 1916F, 548, 157 Pac. 905

11 Reynolds v. Morton, 23 Wyom. 528, 154 Pac. 325.

12 Iowa. Cochran v. Zachery, 137 Ia. 585, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 235, 115 N. W. 486.

It is not, however, necessary that the contract should be reduced to a single instrument or that it should be executed by the parties in any particular way or with any formality. If the writing shows the intention of the parties to enter into a contract, and if it shows the terms of such contract, the parol evidence rule applies, no matter how informal the instrument may be.18 The contract may be embodied in a number of different writings,19 such as a written order and a written acceptance,20 or in the correspondence of the parties,21 or in letters and telegrams.22 The parol evidence rule has, however, been applied to a memorandum signed by the seller and accepted by the buyer, which purports to be a recital of the order under which the seller had paid in full for the article sold.23 A memorandum on the back of a promissory note, setting forth the articles to which title was reserved by a provision upon the face of the note, is a part of such contract and can not be contradicted by extrinsic evidence.24