If the consideration is not recited in the written contract, or if recited appears only as a recital of fact and not as a contractual term, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show what the real consideration is, if such evidence is not inconsistent with the contractual provisions of such contract.1 Such a recital at most raises only a presumption that the considcrations thus recited as a fact is the true consideration,2 and such recital is not conclusive as between the parties,3 and it does not operate as an estoppel.4 If the consideration is recited in a contract of sale as a fact, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the true consideration,5 and it is not necessary to resort to equity for reformation.6 "The language with reference to the consideration is not contractual - it is merely by way of recital of a fact, viz., the amount of such consideration, and not an agreement to pay it, and hence such recitals may be contradicted."7 A provision which fixes the price of the article and which acknowledges receipt of a certain amount, may be contradicted by showing that a certain amount had been added both to the statement of the price and to the statement of the amount paid, thus leaving unaffected the balance actually due.8 The recital of a consideration in the ordinary form of promissory note, is a recital of a consideration as a fact, and such recital does not prevent extrinsic evidence tending to show the true consideration.9 An oral contract of employment may be shown to be a part of the consideration for a release of damages.10 So it may be shown that a settlement of suit for money loaned in a criminal action included also a settlement of suit for a breach of promise.11 A note which on its face recites that it is for services rendered by a payee as attorney may be shown to be supported by a promise of the payee to attend to the interests of the maker of a note in a specified estate.12 The consideration of a note may be shown to be a renewal of a prior note.13 The fact that a check is given together with a written memorandum, showing in part that it is a gift, does not preclude the introduction of extrinsic evidence tending to show that the face of such check did not exceed the actual value of the consideration for which it was given.14

5 Davis v. R. R., 66 Vt. 290, 44 Am. St. Rep. 852, 29 Atl. 313.

6Van Etten v. Newton, 134 N. Y. 143, 30 Am. St. Rep. 630, 31 N. E. 334.

7 Rhodes v. Newhall, 126 N. Y. 574, 22 Am. St. Rep. 859, 27 N. E. 947.

8 Bickley v. Bank, 39 S. Car. 281, 39 Am. St. Rep. 721, 17 S. E. 977.

9 Bickley v. Bank, 39 S. Car. 281, 39 Am. St. Rep. 721, 17 S. E. 977.

10 Jones v. Epstein, - Ark. - , 204 S. W. 217.

1 Arkansas. Hockaday v. Warmack, 121 Ark. 518, 182 S. W. 263.

California. Royer v. Kelly, 174 Cal. 70, 161 Pac. 1148.

Georgia. Stone v. Minter, 111 Ga. 45, 50 L. R. A. 356, 36 S. E. 321; Bond v. Perrin, 145 Ga. 200, 88 S. E. 954.

Illinois. Ryan v. Hamilton, 205 111. 191, 68 N. E. 781 [reversing, 103 111. App. 212]; Brosseau v. Louy, 209 111. 405, 70 N. E. 901 [affirming, 110 111. App. 16].

Indiana. Pickett v. Green, 120 Ind. 584, 22 N. E. 737; Stewart v. R. R., 141 Ind. 55, 40 N. E. 67; Lake Erie, etc., Ry. v. Holland, 162 Ind. 406, 69 N. E. 138; Moore v. Harrison, 26 Ind. App. 408, 59 N. E. 1077; Citizens' Street Ry. v. Heath, 29 Ind. App. 395, 62 N. E. 107.

Iowa. Farmers' Savings Bank v. Hansmann, 114 Ia. 49, 86 N. W. 31; Allen v. Rees, 136 Ia. 423, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1137, 110 N. W. 583.

Kentucky. Price v. Price, 111 Ky. 771, 64 S. W. 746, 66 S. W. 529; Poor's Executor v. Scott (Ky.), 68 S. W. 397; Chrisman v. Quick, 174 Ky. 845, 193 S. W. 13.

Maryland. Hieatzman v. Braecklein, 131 Md. 482, 102 Atl. 917.

Michigan. Stotts v. Stotts, 198 Mich. 605, 165 N. W. 761.

Minnesota. Jensen v. Crosby, 80 Minn. 158, 83 N. W. 43.

New Hampshire. Aldrich v. Whit-aker, 70 N. H. 627, 47 Atl. 591.

New Mexico. Pople v. Orekar, 22 N. M. 307, 161 Pac. 1110.

New York. Keuka College v. Ray, 167 N. Y. 96, 60 N. E. 325; Medical College Laboratory v. University, 178 N. Y. 153, 70 N. E. 467.

North Carolina. Walters v. Walters, 172 N. Car. 328, 90 S. E. 304.

North Dakota. Forester v. Van Auken, 12 N. D. 175, 96 N. W. 301; Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N. D. 193, 157 N. W. 592.

Utah. Miller v. Livingston, 22 Utah 174, 61 Pac. 569.

Virginia. Blose v. Blose, 118 Va. 16, 86 S. E. 911.

Washington. Williams v. Blumen-thal, 27 Wash. 24, 67 Pac. 393; Jones-Rosquist-Killen Co. v. Nelson, 98 Wash. 539, 167 Pac. 1130; Roberts v. Stiltner, 101 Wash. 397, 172 Pac. 738.

West Virginia. Flannigan v. Monongahela Tie & Lumber Co., 77 W. Va. 158, 87 S. E. 165; Monongahela Tie & Lumber Co. v. Flannigan, 77 W. Va. 162, 87 S. E. 161.

Wisconsin. Butt v. Smith, 121 Wis. 566, 99 N. W. 328; Perkins v. Mc-Auliffe, 105 Wis. 582, 81 N. W. 645; Cuddy v. Foreman, 107 Wis. 519, 83 N. W. 1103.

2 Flannigan v. Monongahela Tie & Lumber Co., 77 W. Va. 158, 87 S. E. 165; Monongahela Tie & Lumber Co. v. Flannigan, 77 W. Va. 162, 87 S. E. 161.

3 Chapman v. Schroeder, 166 Wis. 330, 165 N. W. 295.

4Royer v. Kelly, 174 Cal. 70, 161 Pac. 1148.

5 Bond v. Perrin, 145 Ga. 200, 88 8. E. 954; Jones-Rosquist-Killen Co. v. Nelson, 98 Wash. 539, 167 Pac. 1130; Chapman v. Schroeder, 166 Wis. 330, 165 N. W. 295.

6 Chapman v. Schroeder, 166 Wis. 330, 165 N. W. 295.

7 Royer v. Kelly, - Cal. - , 161 Pac. 1148; Pickett v. Green, 120 Ind. 584, 588, 22 N. E. 737.

8 Jones-Rosquist-Killen Go. v. Nelson, 98 Wash. 539, 167 Pac. 1130.

9 Alabama. Booth v. Fire Engine Co., 118 Ala. 360, 24 So. 405; Folmar v. Siler, 132 Ala. 297, 31 So. 719.

Arkansas. Hockaday v. Warmack, 121 Ark. 518, 182 S. W. 263.

Georgia. Burke v. Napier, 106 Ga. 327, 32 S. E. 134; Thrower v. Baker, 144 Ga. 372, 87 S. . 301.

Illinois. Mason v. Griffith, 281 111. 246, 118 N. E. 18.

Iowa. Allen v. Rees, 136 Ia. 423, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1137, 110 N. W. 583.

Kansas. Rice v. Rice, 101 Kan. 20, 165 Pac. 799.

Kentucky. Chrisman v. Quick, 174 Ky. 845, 193 S. W. 13.

Nebraska. Gifford v. Fox (Neb.), 95 N. W. 1066.

North Carolina. Walters v. Walters, 172 N. Gar. 328, 90 S. E. 304; International Harvester Co. v. Parham, 172 N. Car. 389, 90 S. E. 503.

North Dakota. Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N. D. 193, 157 N. W. 592.

Oklahoma. Bank of Commerce v. Webster, - Okla. - , 172 Pac. 943.

Oregon. Savage v. Scroggin, 83 Or. 51, 162 Pac. 1061.

Virginia. Blose v. Blose, 118 Va. 16, 86 S. E. 911.

10Galvin v. Ry., 180 Mass. 587, 62 N. E. 961.

Contra, on the theory that this is a contractual term. Atchison, etc, Ry. v. Vanordstrand, 67 Kan. 386, 73 Pac. 113.

11 Schubkagel v. Dierstein, 131 Pa. St. 46, 6 L. R. A. 481, 18 Atl. 1059.

12 Jones v. Rhea, 122 N. Car. 721, 30 S. E. 346.

13 Merchants' National Bank v. Van-diver, 104 Ga. 165, 30 S. E. 650.

14 Foxworthy v. Adams, 136 Ky. 403, 27 1.. R. A. (N.S.) 308, 124 S. W. 381.

The recital of a consideration in a deed is a recital of fact and may be contradicted.15 The consideration for a conveyance may be shown to be the permission by the grantee to the grantor to grow wheat on a part of the land conveyed.16 So the real consideration may be shown to be the release of a guarantor,17 or of an obligor upon a note.18 Where A conveyed realty to B in payment of a debt, but A, in order to prevent trouble with his relatives, inserted a money consideration of two thousand, eight hundred dollars, and induced B to advance him that amount by a promise to refund it later, B may show the real transaction.19 If an instrument purports to be "for value received," the actual consideration may be shown. Thus a written guaranty of a note, purporting to be "for value received," may be shown to be in consideration of an agreement to forbear suit.20 If a nominal valuable consideration is shown in the instrument, the real consideration may be shown, as where the consideration is one dollar,21 or one dollar and other considerations.22 If an assignment of a right is made in consideration of one dollar and other good and valuable considerations, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that such consideration is still due and unpaid.23 The recital in a deed of a substantial consideration and other valuable considerations, does not prevent evidence tending to show the amount of the consideration,24 or five dollars and love and affection.25 So if a written contract shows on its face that it is divisible, it may be shown that the actual consideration was for one of the promises only.26 This rule has been extended to a case where an aggregate sum as consideration for several covenants may be shown to be made up of a separate amount for each, and thus failure of consideration for a note given may be shown.27

15 London v. G. L. Anderson Brass Works, 197 Ala. 16, 72 So. 359. See Sec. 2161.

16 Breitenwischer v. Clough, 111 Mich. 6, 66 Am. St. Rep. 372, 69 N. W. 88.

17 Martin v. Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 212 [writ of error denied (Tex.), 67 S. W. 883].

18Timmier v. Liles, 58 S. Car. 284, 36 S. E. 652.

19 Stone v. Minter, 111 Ga. 45, 50 L. R. A. 356, 36 S. E. 321.

20 Citizens', etc., Co. v. Babbitt, 71 Vt. 182, 44 Atl. 71.

21 Wolf v. Haslach, 65 Neb. 303, 91 N. W. 283.

22Hieatzman v. Braecklein, 131 Md. 482, 102 Atl. 917; Wright v. Stewart, 19 Wash. 179, 52 Pac. 1020.

23Hieatzman v. Braecklein, 131 Md. 482, 102 Atl. 917.

24Klumpp v. Howcott, 139 La. 163, 71 So. 353.

25 Barnes v. Black, 193 Pa. St. 447, 74 Am. St. Rep. 694, 44 Atl. 550.

26 Platt v. Scribner, 18 Ohio C. C. 452.

27 Field v. Austin, 131 Cal. 379, 63 Pac. 692.