An instrument which is in part a receipt may also contain contractual terms. In such case, while the part of it which is a receipt may be contradicted by extrinsic evidence, the contractual terms are within the operation of the parol evidence rule.1 A bill of lading,2 a storage receipt,3 or a warehouse receipt,4 often contained contractual terms which come within the operation of the parol evidence rule. Thus a shipper can not introduce evidence of an oral contract to show that the clause in the written bill of lading, limiting the carrier's liability, was not to be operative,5 or to show that the contract was made with the consignee and not with the consignor.6 So where a bill of lading recited the delivery of fifty-four thousand bushels of wheat, and provided "all the deficiency in cargo to be paid by the carrier and deducted from the freight, and any excess in the cargo to be paid for to the carrier by the consignee," the statement as to the amount of wheat received was thereby made a contractual term, and not a mere receipt; and accordingly the carrier was liable for any deficiency, though he did not receive the amount stipulated.7 A certificate of deposit is a contract and not merely a receipt.8 Accordingly, if signed, "A, manager," and A was manager of a private bank, an oral agreement that the deposit was with another bank of which A was president can not be enforced.9 If a lease recites that the consideration consists of "the covenants and agreements hereafter mentioned," and one of such covenants is a covenant by the lessee to maintain a specified manufacturing plant upon the leased premises, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the covenant to maintain such manufacturing plant was not intended as the consideration of such lease.10

18 Rand v. Scofield, 43 111. 167; Mc-Kinney v. Harvie, 38 Minn. 18, 8 Am. St. Rep. 640, 35 N. W. 668.

19 French v. Newberry, 124 Mich. 147, 82 N. W. 840.

20National Trust & Credit Co. v. Polk, 123 Ark. 24, 183 S. W. 195.

21 East Sioux Falls Quarry Co. v. Wisconsin Granite Co., 39 S. D. 301, 164 N. W. 77.

22 East Sioux Falls Quarry Co. v. Wisconsin Granite Co., 39 S. D. 301, 164 N. W. 77.

23 See Sec. 2157.

24 East Sioux Falls Quarry Co. v. Wisconsin Granite Co., 39 S. D. 301, 164 N. W. 77.

1 Georgia. Hill v. Terrell, 123 Ga. 49, 51 S. E. 81.

New York. Coon v. Knap, 8 N. Y. 402, 59 Am. Dec. 502.

North Dakota. Knapp v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 34 N. D. 466, 159 N. W. 81.

Oklahoma. Robertson v. Vandeven-ter, 51 Okla. 561, 152 Pac. 107.

Oregon. Milos v. Covacevich, 40 Or. 239, 66 Pac. 914.

Wisconsin. Kammermayer v. Hilz, 107 Wis. 101, 82 N. W. 689.

2 Georgia. McElveen v. Ry., 109 Ga. 249, 77 Am. St. Rep. 371, 34 S. E. 281.

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

Louisiana. Sonia Cotton-Oil Co. v. The Red River, 106 La. 42, 87 Am. St. Rep. 294, 30 So. 303.

Massachusetts. Porter v. Oceanic S. S. Co., 223 Mass. 224, 111 N. E. 864.

Minnesota. Bank v. R. R., 44 Minn. 224, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566, 9 L. R. A. 263, 46 N. W. 342, 560.

New York. Van Etten v. Newton, 134 N. Y. 143, 30 Am. St. Rep. 630, 31 N. E. 334.

North Dakota. Knapp v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 34 N. D. 466, 159 N. W. 81.

3 Thompson v. Thompson, 78 Minn. 379, 384, 81 N. W. 204, 81 N. W. 543.

4 Union Storage Co. v. Speck, 194 Pa. St. 126, 45 Atl. 48.