Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible in an action on an unambiguous written contract, to show the understanding of the meaning and effect of such contract entertained by one or both the parties thereto when the contract was entered into. If the intention of one party alone is shown, and the evidence does not show that the other parties acquiesced therein, no contract of any sort is shown to exist.1 The meaning of a written contract is to be ascertained from the language which is employed, and not from the actual intention of the person who drew such contract.2 Evidence offered by one party as to his actual intention in executing the contract, should not be considered.3 The declarations of a grantor as to his intention can not be considered in construing a deed.4 Extrinsic evidence to the effect that the insured intended that a policy which covered his interest in certain property should cover the profits, and which does not show that the insurer intended that such policy should cover the profits, does not show the existence of a contract, and it is inadmissible for that reason, as well for the reason that it is in violation of the parol evidence rule.5

91 Rncine County Bank v. Keep, 13 Wis. 209.

92 Bryan v. Harrison, 76 N. Car. 360; Stearns v. Mason, 65 Va. (24 Gratt.)

484.

93 Confederate Note Case, 86 U. S. (10 Wall.) 548. 22 L. ed. 106; Car-michael v. White, 58 Tenn. (11 Heisk) 262; Donley v. Tindall, 32 Tex. 43, 5 Am. Rep. 234.

94 California. Conner v. Clark, 12 Gal. 168, 73 Am. Dec. 520.

Illinois. Murchie v. Peck, 160 111. 175, 43 N. E. 356.

Massachusetts. Currier v. Hale, 90 Mass. (8 All.) 47.

Minnesota. Harrison v. Morrison, 30 Minn. 319, 40 N. W. 66.

Oregon. Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Or. 251, 38 Pac. 185.

Tennessee. Ellis v. Hamilton, 36 Tenn. (4 Sneed) 512.

95 Lake Side Land Co. v. Dromgoole, 80 Ala. 505.

96 Fuller v. Law, 207 Pa. St. 101, 56 Atl. 333.

97McMicken v. Webb, 47 U. S. (6 How.) 202, 12 L. ed. 443.

98 Ferber v. Cona, 01 N. J. L. 474, 103 Atl. 471.

Pac. 300.

If extrinsic evidence is introduced to show the common understanding and intention of both the parties to the contract, such evidence violates the parol evidence rule.6 Thus where the contract is conceded to be valid, extrinsic evidence of representations of an agent, made at the time the contract was entered into, is inadmissible to show the intention of the parties.7 If the instrument shows the location of a right of way, evidence of the intention of the parties can not be regarded for the purpose of changing such location.8 If it is contended that a written contract binds the parties to enter into the contract in the future, instead of incurring a present liability, such intention can not be shown by extrinsic evidence if it does not appear from the terms of the written contract.9 If machinery is sold under a contract which specifies the character of work which it is to do, in guaranteeing that it will do such work, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show what one of the parties,10 such as the purchaser,11 understood that such guaranty meant. If the contract provides that the machinery shall be satisfactory to the purchaser, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the seller understood that the machinery would be satisfactory if it performed certain work in a certain specified manner.12 So a written contract for employment can not be varied by extrinsic evidence of a contract to pay extra compensation for work overtime.13 A contract to "log" certain land and to cut and remove merchantable timber, is so clear that evidence of the intention of the parties is inadmissible.14 So if the time of performance is fixed in the written contract, a contemporaneous oral agreement changing such time, either lengthening it,15 or shortening it,16 is inadmissible. So a contemporaneous agreement can not change the place of performance from that fixed by the written contract.17

1 California. Hershey v. Lob Angeles Pacific Co., 171 Cal. 353, 153 Pac. 230.

Georgia. Terrell v. Huff, 108 Ga. 655, 34 S. E. 345.

Indiana. Brown v. Langner, 25 Ind. App. 538, 58 N. E. 743.

Maine. McLeod v. Johnson, 96 Me. 271, 52 Atl. 760.

Minnesota. Bell Lumber Co. v. Seaman, 136 Minn. 106, 161 N. W. 383; Allen v. Torbert, 140 Minn. 195, 167 N. W. 1033.

Mississippi. Gulledge v. Woolen Mills, 75 Miss. 297, 22 So. 952.

Missouri. McMahill v. Schowengerdt (Mo.). 183 S. W. 605.

Montana. Armington v. Stelle, 27 Mont. 13, 94 Am. St. Rep. 811, 69 Pac. 115.

North Carolina. American Potato Co. v. Jenette Bros. Co., 172 N. Car. 1, 89 S. E. 791; Wear-Well Pants Co. v. West, 175 N. Car. 565, 96 S. E. 33. Oklahoma. Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Lumber Co., 11 Okla. 579, 585, 69 Pac. 936, 938.

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

2Comptograph Co. v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co., 179 Ia. 83, 159 N. W. 465. * * * a contract is to be understood by the language employed therein, and not according to the views of its meaning intended by the person who drew it." Compto-graph Co. v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co., 179 Ia. 83, 159 N. W. 465 [citing, Congower v. Association, 94 Ia. 499, 63 N. W. 1921.

See Sec. 2020 et seq.

3 Hershey v. Los Angeles Pacific Co., 171 Cal. 353, 153 Pac. 230.

4McMahill v. Schowengerdt (Mo.), 183 S. W. 605.

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

6 United States. Bijur Motor Lighting Co. v. Eclipse Machine Co., 243 Fed. 600.

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

California. Robertson v. Buckler, - Cal. - , 170 Pac. 424.

Connecticut. Hartford, etc., Association v. Goldreyer, 71 Conn. 95, 41 Atl. 659.

Florida. Georgia Home Ins. Go. v. Hoskins, 71 Fla. 282, 71 So. 285.

Georgia. Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Mfg. Co., 113 Ga. 1142, 39 S. E. 471.

Illinois. Commercial, etc., Co. v. Bates, 176 111. 194, 52 N. E. 49; Roberts v. Dazey, 284 111. 241, 119 N. E. 910.

Indiana. Cravens v. Cotton Mills, 120 Ind. 6, 16 Am. St. Rep. 298, 21 N. E. 981; Buckeye Mfg. Co. v. Machine Works, 26 Ind. App. 7, 58 N. E. 1069.

Iowa. Pratt v. Prouty, 104 Ia. 419, 65 Am. St. Rep. 472, 73 N. W. 1035; Clement v. Drybread, 108 Ia. 701, 78 N. W. 235.

Maryland. Neal v. Hopkins, 87 Md. 19, 39 Atl. 322.

Massachusetts. Morton v. Clark, 181 Mass. 134, 63 N. E. 409.

Michigan. Sheley v. Brooks, 114 Mich. 11, 72 N. W. 37; Crane v. Bayley, 126 Mich. 323, 85 N. W. 874; Haynes v Hobbs, 136 Mich. 117, 98 N. W. 978; John D. Gruber Co. v. Smith, 195 Mich. 336, 162 N. W. 124.

Mississippi. Chicago, etc., Co. v. Higginbotham (Miss.), 29 So. 79.

Nebraska. Latenser v. Misner, 56 Neb. 340, 76 N. W. 897; Garneau v. Cohn, 61 Neb. 500, 85 N. W. 531; Faulkner v. Gilbert, 61 Neb. 602, 85 N. W. 843.

New Hampshire. Saddlery Hardware Co. v. Hillsborough Mills, 68 N. H. 216, 73 Am. St. Rep. 569, 44 Atl. 300.

New Mexico. Price v. Weed, 9 N. M.. 397, 54 Pac. 231.

North Carolina. McKenzie v. Houston, 130 N. Car. 566, 41 S. E. 780.

Pennsylvania. Melcher v. Hill, 194 Pa. St. 440, 45 Atl. 488; Dougherty v. Norwood, 196 Pa. St. 92, 46 Atl. 384.

South Carolina. Guimarin v. Southern Life & Trust Co., 106 S. Car. 37, 90 S. E. 319.

Texas. Sloan v. King (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 541.

Virginia. Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Board of Education, 49 W. Va. 360, 38 S. E. 679.

Washington. Michels v. Rustmeyer, 20 Wash. 597, 56 Pac. 380 Gibson v. Rourke Co., 22 Wash. 449, 61 Pac. 162

West Virginia. Crislip v. Cain, 19 W. Va. 438.

Wisconsin. Wussow v. Hase, 108 Wis. 382, 84 N. W. 433; Johnson v. Pugh, 110 Wis. 167, 85 N. W. 641.

7 United States. McMaster v. Ins. Co., 99 Fed. 856, 40 C. C. A. 119 [affirming, 90 Fed. 401.

Georgia. Barry v. Smith, 105 Ga. 34, 31 S. E. 121.

Iowa. Burgher v. Ry., 105 Ia. 335, 75 N. W. 192.

Maryland. Scott v. Ry., 93 Md. 475, 49 Atl. 327.

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

Pennsylvania. Meyer-Brans v. Ins. Co., 189 Pa. St. 579, 42 Atl. 297.

Wisconsin. Milwaukee Carnival Association v. King, etc., Co., 112 Wis. 647, 88 N. W. 598.

8 Hoffman v. Dorris, 83 Or. 625, 163 Pac. 972.