A receipt, if free from contractual terms, is a mere recital of the fact of the payment of money or delivery of property. The parol evidence rule does not apply to such receipts, and they may be contradicted by extrinsic evidence like other recitals of fact if such evidence is not inconsistent with the contractual provisions of such instrument.1 The receipt of payment which is found in the ordinary form of a deed may be contradicted, and the grantor may maintain an action for recovery of the purchase price, or he may enforce a vendor's lien against the realty.2 Thus a receipt for an insurance premium;3 a statement in a contract of sale that a certain amount had been paid under such contract;4 the receipt of property by a common carrier shown in the bill of lading,5 either as to the fact of the receipt of goods at all,6 or as to the quantity of goods received;7 or as to the condition in which the property was received;8 a receipt of property shown by a load-check; 9 a check given by a sleeping-car conductor to a passenger on the surrender of the passenger's ticket to the conductor;10 a deposit slip or receipt given by a bank;11 an entry by a bank in a pass-book, showing money received by the bank to the credit of the depositor;12 and a recital in a non-negotiable note that a part of its consideration is for services heretofore rendered,13 are each mere receipts and may be contradicted by extrinsic evidence. Memoranda of payments which are endorsed upon the back of a negotiable instrument are receipts and not contracts, and may be contradicted by extrinsic evidence.14 Even if a memorandum which was delivered at the same time as a check, shows that the check is in part intended as a gift, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the consideration for the check and to show that the entire amount of such check was for value.15 Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that a receipt applies to but one out of several transactions between the parties thereto.16 The creditor may show that the amount paid, together with the value of property received from the debtor, amounted to the entire debt.17 The party giving the receipt may show that the party paying money to him did so as agent for another person.18 A receipt does not prevent the parties thereto from showing by whom the purchase was really made.19 A receipt which sets forth the payment of a certain amount and which also sets forth the application of such payment, may be contradicted by extrinsic evidence.20

8 Wise v. Collins, 121 Cal. 147, 53 Pac. 640.

9 See Sec. 2156 et seq.

10 Foster v. Kirby, 31 Mo. 496.

1 Alabama. Gravlee v. Lamkin, 120 Ala. 210, 24 So. 756; Rarden v. Cunningham, 136 Ala. 263, 34 So. 26; Windham v. Hydride, 197 Ala. 125, 72 So. 403; Williams v. Shows, 197 Ala. 596, 73 So. 99.

Arkansas. National Trust & Credit Co. v. Polk, 123 Ark. 24, 183 S. W. 195; Prescott & N. W. R. Co. v. Davis, 126 Ark. 366, 191 S. W. 210.

California. Jenne v. Burger, 120 Cal. 444, 52 Pac. 706; Carpenter v. Mark-ham, 172 Cal. 112, 155 Pac. 644; Honore v. Lemm, - Cal. - , 184 Pac. 664.

Colorado. Colorado, etc., Co. v. Ponick, 16 Colo. App. 478, 66 Pac. 458.

Illinois. Merchants' Dispatch Transportation Co. v. Furthmann, 149 111. 66, 41 Am. St. Rep. 265, 36 N. E. 624; McDonald v. Danahy, 196 111. 133, 63 N. E. 648; Starkweather v. Maginnis, 196 111. 274, 63 N. E. 692.

Indiana. Henry v. Henry, 11 Ind. 236, 71 Am. Dec. 354.

Iowa. Butler v. Farmers' National Bank, 173 Ia. 659, 155 N. W. 999.

Kansas. Missouri-Pacific Ry. v. Loye-lace, 57 Kan. 195, 45 Pac. 590.

Maryland. Schneider v. Martens, 127 Md. 547, 96 Atl. 673.

Massachusetts. Wilkinson v. Scott, 17 Mass. 249.

Minnesota. McCaffery v. Burkhardt, 07 Minn. 1, 114 Am. St. Rep. 688, 106 N. W. 971.

Montana. Hennessy v. Furniture Co., 30 Mont. 264, 76 Pac. 291.

Nebraska. Morse v. Rice, 36 Neb. 212, 54 N. W. 308.

New Jersey. Kenny v. Kane, 50 N. J. L. 562, 14 Atl. 597.

New York. Smith v. Holland, 61 N. Y. 635; Seeley v. Osborne, 220 N. Y. 416, 116 N. E. 97.

Oklahoma. Robertson v. Vandeventer, 51 Okla. 561, 152 Pac. 107; American Home Life Insurance Co. v. Citizens' State Bank, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918B, 296, 168 Pac. 437; American National Bank v. Funk, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918F, 1137, 172 Pac. 1078; Kuykendall v. Lambert, - Okla. - , 173 Pac. 657.

Tennessee. Kirkpatrick v. Smith, 19 Tenn. (10 Humph.) 188.

Vermont. Jones v. Campbell, - Vt. - , L. R. A. 1918A, 1056, 102 Atl. 102.

Washington. Jones-Rosquist-Killen Co. v. Nelson, 98 Wash. 539, 167 Pac. 1130.

West Virginia. Cushwa v. Building Association, 45 W. Va. 490, 32 S. E. 259; Polino v. Keck, 80 W. Va. 426, 92 S. E. 665.

Wisconsin. Twohy Mercantile Co. v. McDonald's Estate, 108 Wis. 21, 83 N. W. 1107.

2 Schneider v. Martens, 127 Md. 547, 96 Atl. 673.

3Robison v. Wolf, 27 Ind. App. 683, 62 N. E. 74; Sargent v. Ins. Co., 189 Pa. St. 341, 41 Atl. 351.

4 Jones-Rosquist-Killen Co. v. Nelson, 98 Wash. 539, 167 Pac. 1130.

5 United States. The Lady Franklin, 75 U. S. (8 Wall.) 325, 19 L. ed. 455; Planters' Fertilizer Mfg. Co. v. Elder, 101 Fed. 1001, 42 C. C. A. 130.

Arkansas. Prescott & N. W. R. Co. v. Davis, 126 Ark. 366, 191 S. W. 210.

California. Pereira v. Ry., 66 Cal. 92, 4 Pac. 988.

Illinois. Merchants' Dispatch Co. v. Furthmann, 149 111. 66, 41 Am. St. Rep. 265, 36 N. E. 624; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. v. Bank, 178 111. 506, 53 N. E. 326.

Iowa. Chapin v. Ry., 79 Ia. 582, 44 N. W. 820.

Massachusetts. Blanchard v. Page, 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 281. .

Michigan. Strong v. Ry., 15 Mich. 206, 93 Am. Dec. 184.

New York. Ellis v. Willard, 9 N. Y. 529; Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590.

Ohio. Dean v. King, 22 O. S. 118; May v. Babcock, 4 Ohio 334.

South Carolina. Ferebee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., - S. Car. - , 95 S. E. 349.

6 Grant v. Norway, 10 C. B. 665; The Lady Franklin, 75 U. S. (8 Wall.) 325, 19 L. ed. 455; National Bank v. Ry., 44 Minn. 224, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566, 9 L. R. A. 263, 46 N. W. 342, 560.

7 Hall v. Mayo, 87 Mass. (7 All.) 454; Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590; Dean v. King, 22 O. S. 118.

8 Ferebee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., - S. Car. - , 95 S. E. 349.

9 Anderson v. Flouring Mills Co., 37 Or. 483, 82 Am. St. Rep. 711, 50 L. R. A. 235, 60 Pac. 839.

10 Mann -Boudoir Sleeping Car Co. v. Dupre, 54 Fed. 646, 21 L. R. A. 289, 4 C. C. A. 640.

11 Iowa. Butler v. Farmers' National Bank, 173 Ia. 659, 155 ,N. W. 999.

New York. First National Bank v. Clark, 134 N. Y. 368, 17 L. R. A. 580, 32 N. E. 38.

Oklahoma. American Home Life Insurance Co. v. Citizens' State Bank, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918B, 296, 168 Pac. 437; American National Bank v. Funk, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918F, 1137, 172 Pac. 1078.

Pennsylvania. Pool v. White, 175 Pa. St. 459, 34 Atl. 801.

South Carolina. Fort v. First National Bank, 82 S. Car. 427, 64 S. E. 405.

Apparently contra, see Long v. Straus, 107 Ind. 94, 57 Am. Rep. 87, 6 N. E. 123.

12 Scotland. Commercial Bank v. Rhind, 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 643.

Alabama. Anniston National Bank v. Howell, 116 Ala. 375, 22 So. 471.

Iowa. Anderson v. Leverich, 70 Ia. 741.

Kansas. Talcott v. Bank, 53 Kan. 480, 24 L. R. A. 737, 36 Pac. 1066.

Massachusetts. Union Bank v. Knapp, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 96, 15 Am. Dec. 182.

Michigan. Davis v. Bank, 53 Mich. 163, 18 N. W. 629.

Missouri. Quattrochi v. Bank, 89 Mo. App. 500.

New York. Mechanics' & Farmers' Bank v. Smith, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 115.

Contra, Manhattan Co. v. Lydig, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 377, 4 Am. Dec. 289.

13 Mulligan v. Smith, 13 Colo. App. 231, 57 Pac. 731.

14McCaffery v. Burkhardt, 97 Minn. 1, 114 Am. St. Rep. 688, 105 N. W. 971.

15Foxworthy v. Adams, 136 Ky. 403, 27 L. R. A. (N.S.) 308, 124 S. W. 381.

16 Robertson v. Vandeventer, 51 Okla. 561, 152 Pac. 107.

17 Williams v. Shows, 197 Ala. 596, 73 So. 99.

A matter which is ordinarily a recital of fact,21 such as the condition of certain property at a specified time,22 may by express agreement be made a contractual term, and in such case under the principle subsequently discussed,23 such provision can not be contradicted. If a lease of certain property provides that a schedule as to the condition of such property upon which the parties had agreed should be attached to the lease and made a part thereof, such agreement as to the condition of such property is conclusive and can not be contradicted.24