Extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements between parties is inadmissible to vary the terms of the written contract which they have entered into,1 and this is true of prior written negotiations.2 Thus in a land contract extrinsic evidence changing a corner,3 or a boundary,4 of the land contracted for, is inadmissible. If a land contract refers to certain liens as of doubtful validity, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the existence and validity of such liens were known and that the property was purchased subject thereto.5 So under a written lease extrinsic evidence of an oral covenant not to assign is inadmissible.6 So under a written contract for subscription to corporate stock of a railroad company, a prior oral contract that a railroad station will be located next to the property of the subscriber, can not be enforced.7 So under a written contract to make and sell a machine, an oral representation that such machine could be put on the market at a certain price can not be regarded as a term of the contract.8 If a written contract for the dissolution of a partnership states in detail the obligation which each partner is to pay, the actual intention of the parties to such contract can not be shown to contradict such written agreement.9 If a contractor has agreed with the property owner to pay all claims for labor performed and materials furnished and to give a bond to pay such claims, the sureties who have entered into such bond can not show by extrinsic evidence that they did not intend to be bound except to the property owner.10

9 Bijur Motor Lighting Co. v. Eclipse Machine Co., 243 Fed. 600.

10 Inman Manufacturing Co. v. American Cereal Co., 133 Ia. 71, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1140, 110 N. W. 287; Mineral Ridge Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 79 W. Va. 736, 91 S. E. 817.

11 Mineral Ridge Mfg. Co. v. Smith. 79 W. Va. 736, 91 S. E. 817.

12 Inman Manufacturing Co. v. American Cereal Co., 133 Ia. 71, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1140, 110 N. W. 287.

13 The Lakme, 93 Fed. 230.

14 Bell Lumber Co. v. Seaman, 136 Minn. 106, 161 N. W. 383.

15 Gordon v. Niemann. 118 N. Y. 152. 23 N. E. 454.

16Cleckley v. Fidelity Co., 117 Ga. 466, 43 S. E. 725.

17 Samuel M. Lawder & Sons Co. v. Grocer Co., 97 Md. 1, 54 Atl. 634.

1 Arkansas. Anderson v. Wainwright, 67 Ark. 62, 53 S. W. 566.

California. Hawley v. Kafitz, 148 Cal. 393, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 741, 83 Pac. 248.

Georgia. Bullard v. Brewer, 118 Ga. 918. 45 S. E. 711.

Kansas. Rose v. Zinc Co., 68 Kan. 468, 74 Pac. 625.

Michigan. Rough v. Breitung. 117 Mich. 48, 75 N. W. 147.

Minnesota. Emkee v. Ahston, 139 Minn. 443, 166 N. W. 1079.

Mississippi. Coates v. Bacon, 77 Miss. 320, 27 So. 621.

Nebraska. Te Poel v. Shutt, 57 Neb. 592, 78 N. W. 288; Norfolk Beet Sugar Co. v. Berger, 1 Neb. (unoff.) 151, 95 N. W. 336.

Oklahoma. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v. Lumber Co., 11 Okla. 579, 585, 69 Pac. 936, 938.

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

Pennsylvania. Streator v. Paxton, 201 Pa. St. 135, 50 Atl. 926.

South Carolina. Roach v. Williams, - S. Car. - , 95 8. E. 120.

Utah. Haskins v. Dern, 19 Utah 89, 56 Pac. 953.

West Virginia. Maupin v. Ins. Co., 53 W. Va. 567, 45 S. E. 1003.

Wisconsin. United States Gypsum Co. v. Gleason, 135 Wis. 539, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 906, 116 N. W. 238.

2 Rough v. Breitung, 117 Mich. 48, 75 N. W. 147.

3 Town of Kane v. Farrelly, 192 111. 521, 61 N. E. 648.

4 Weaver v. Stoner. 114 Ga. 165, 39 S. E. 874.

5Emkee v. Ahston, 139 Minn. 443, 166 N. W. 1079.

6 Rickard v. Dana, 74 Vt. 74. 52 Atl. 113.

7 Philadelphia, etc., R. R. v. Conway, 177 Pa. St. 364. 35 Atl. 716.

8 Macklem v. Fales, 130 Mich. 66, 89 N. W. 581.

9 Muir v. Morris, 80 Or. 378, 157 Pac. 785 [denying rehearing, Muir v. Morris, 80 Or. 378. 154 Pac. 117].

10 United States Gypsum Co. v. Gleason, 135 Wis. 539, 17 L. R. A. (N.8.) 906, 116 N. W. 238.