If the extrinsic evidence which is offered for the purpose of showing the true consideration is inconsistent with the contractual provisions of the instrument or with its legal effect, such extrinsic evidence is inadmissible for that reason and not because it contradicts the recital of the consideration.1 If a deed recites the consideration as a specified amount of money, and such deed is sufficient in law to pass the property without exceptions or reservations, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that a part of the consideration was the reservation of an easement across such realty.2 If a conveyance purports upon its face to be absolute, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the consideration of such conveyance was that the grantee should permit the grantor to reside upon the premises thus conveyed and that the grantee should devise such property to grantor upon the death of the grantee.3 Under a conveyance of realty in the ordinary form, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show a contract by which the grantee agrees to divide with the grantor profits which may arise upon a resale of such realty.4 Whether the grantor may show that an agreement on the part of the grantee to support the grantor was a part of the consideration for the conveyance in addition to that expressed in the deed, is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority. In some cases such evidence is held to be admissible on the ground that the consideration may be inquired into,5 and in other cases it is held that such evidence is inadmissible as tending to vary the consideration expressed in the deed,6 especially if the deed recites a substantial consideration in money.7 Under a contract for the sale of realty, which recites the receipt of a specified amount of money as the consideration in part for such contract, extrinsic evidence is held to be admissible to show that the real consideration was the right of the vendor to retain part of the realty.8 The fact that the deed does not show that the parties had agreed upon a certain price per acre, does not prevent them from showing such price in order to recover for a deficiency in the area.9 If a contract appears to be absolute on its face, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add a condition subsequent,10 and this rule can not be evaded by calling the condition subsequent a part of the consideration.11 If a note recites that it is given for a specified consideration, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that other considerations were to be furnished for the purpose of showing a partial failure of consideration,12 although such evidence can not be shown to add an express condition to such note.13

14 Milich v. Packing Co., 60 Kan. 229, 56 Pac. 1; Jackowski v. Steel Co., 103 Wis. 448, 79 N. W. 757.

15Clark v. Mallory, 185 111. 227, 56 N. E. 1099 [affirming, 83 111. App. 488].

16 Allen v. Mill Co., 18 Wash. 216, 51 Pac. 373.

1 Trout v. Norfolk & W. R. Co.. 107 Va. 576, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 702, 59 S.

E. 394; Erfurth v. Erfurth, 90 Wash. 521, 156 Pac. 523.

2 Trout v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 107 Va. 576, 17 L. R. A. (N.8.) 702, 59 S. E. 394.

3 Erfurth v. Erfurth, 90 Wash. 521, 156 Pac. 523.

4 Pfeiffer v. Nienaber, 143 La. 601, 78 So. 977.

See also, Sec. 1286.