The purpose of a deed is primarily to convey title to realty,1 and under the ordinary form of a deed the consideration is recited as a fact and is not stated as a contractual term. Accordingly, the real consideration may be shown under the ordinary form of a deed,2 at least as long as such evidence is not introduced for the purpose of contradicting the effect and operation of the deed.3 In an action to recover the consideration recited in the deed, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that the consideration which is set forth in the deed is greater than the consideration actually agreed upon and that the consideration actually agreed upon has been paid.4 On the other hand, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that the real consideration was greater than the consideration recited in the deed.5 If the deed recites the consideration at a specified amount in money, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that the consideration was not only the payment of such amount, but was the payment of the obligation against the grantor.6 Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that the consideration recited in a deed was intended as an advancement.7

5 Wilfong v. Johnson, 41 W. Va. 283, 23 S. E. 730; Furst v. Galloway, 56 W. Va. 246, 40 S. E. 146.

6 Wilson v. Highley, 98 Kan. 154, 157 Pac. 411.

7 Wilson v. Highley, 98 Kan. 154, 157 Pac. 411.

8 Roberts v. Stiltner, 101 Wash. 397, 172 Pac. 738.

9 Caughron v. Stinespring, 132 Tenn. 636, 179 S. W. 152.

10 See Sec. 2179.

11 International Harvester Co. v. Par-ham, 172 N. Car. 389, 90 S. E. 503; Union Machinery & Supply Co. v. Darnell, 89 Wash. 226, 154 Pac. 183; Stickney v. Hughes, 12 Wyom. 397, 75 Pac. 945.

12 International Harvester Co. v. Par-ham, 172 N. Car. 389, 90 S. E. 503.

13 International Harvester Co. v. Par-ham, 172 N. Car. 389, 90 S. E. 503.

1 Union Machinery & Supply Co. v. Darnell, 89 Wash. 226, 154 Pac. 183.

2 Alabama. Hamaker v. Coons, 117 Ala. 603, 23 So. 655; Harraway v. Har-raway, 136 Ala. 490, 34 So. 836; London v. G. L. Anderson Brass Works, 197 Ala. 16, 72 So. 359.

Arkansas. Lay v. Gaines, 130 Ark. 167, 196 S. W. 919.

California. Anthony v. Chapman, 65 Cal 73, 2 Pac. 889.

Florida. Herrin v. Abbe, 55 Fla. 769, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 907, 46 So. 183.

Georgia. Leggett v. Patterson, 114. Ga. 714, 40 S. E. 736; Martin v. White, 115 Ga. 866, 42 S. E. 279; Harkless v. Smith, 115 Ga. 350, 41 S. E. 634; Coles v. Mozley, 148 Ga. 21, 95 S. E. 963.

Indiana. Stewart v. R. R., 141 Ind 55, 40 N. E. 67.

Iowa. Coleman v. Gammon (Ia.), 83 N. W. 898; Waukee Savings Bank v. Jones, 179 Ia. 261, 159 N. W. 691.

Kentucky. Menser v. Lea, 176 Ky 391, 195 S. W. 813.

Michigan. Ford v. Savage, 111 Mich. 144, 69 N. W. 240.

Minnesota. Langan v. Iverson, 78 Minn! 299, 80 N. W. 1051; Le May v. Brett, 81 Minn. 506, 84 N. W. 339.

Nebraska. Columbia National Bank v. Baldwin, 64 Neb. 732, 90 N. W. 890.

Hew York. Baird v. Baird, 145 N. Y. 659, 28 L R. A. 375, 40 N. E. 222

North Carolina. Price v. Harrington, 171 N. Car. 132, 87 S. E. 986.

Ohio. Carter v. Day, 59 O. S. 96, 69 Am. St. Rep. 757, 51 N. E. 967; Shehy v. Cunningham, 81 O. S. 289, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1194, 90 N. E. 805.

Pennsylvania. In re Edmundson's Estate, 259 Pa. St. 429, 103 Atl. 277.

South Carolina. Alexander v. Mc-Daniel, 56 S. Car. 252, 34 S. E. 405; Lenhardt v. Ponder, 64 S. Car. 354, 42 S. E. 169.

Tennessee. Caughron v. Stinespring, 132 Tenn. 636, 179 S. W. 152.

Washington. Union Machinery & Supply Co. v. Darnell, 89 Wash. 226, 154 Pac. 183.

Wisconsin. Halvorsen v. Halvorsen, 120 Wis. 52, 97 N. W. 494.

See however, Campbell v. Sigmon, 170 N. Car. 348, 87 S. E. 116.

3 See Sec. 2160.

4 Coles v. Mozley, - Ga. - , 95 S. E. 963.

5Lay v. Gaines, 130 Ark. 167, 196 S. W. 919; Price v. Harrington, 171 N. Car. 132, 87 S. E. 986.

6 Price v .Harrington, 171 N. Car. 132, 87 S. E. 986.

7 Shehy v. Cunningham, 81 O. S. 299, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1194, 90 N. E. 805.

The admissibility of extrinsic evidence to show the true consideration is exceptionally clear where the deed recites a nominal consideration,8 such as "one dollar and other valuable considerations."9 Under such a written instrument it may be shown that the real consideration was the assumption of the debt of another person,10 as where in a deed the grantee assumes as a part of the consideration the payment of the debts of the grantor, which have become liens upon the property,11 or is to pay the vendor one-half the proceeds of the minerals on the realty conveyed.12 So where a deed is given an oral contract whereby the grantor agrees to pay certain street assessments may be enforced.13 So it may be shown even where a covenant against encumbrances is inserted in a deed that the grantee retained the purchase price to pay the encumbrances, and subsequently settled with the grantor, the latter relying on the statement of the grantee that the encumbrances were paid.14 The agreement by the grantee to assume a mortgage may be shown even if the deed contains a covenant against encumbrances.15 If the deed excepts a prior mortgage from a covenant of warranty, oral evidence is admissible to show that the grantee was to assume the principal of the mortgage, but not the interest thereon.16 So under a deed which recites a certain sum of money as a consideration, it may be shown that the transfer of title to certain horses was also a part of the consideration.17 If the deed recites the consideration and recites the payment thereof, and extrinsic evidence is introduced tending to show that such consideration has in fact been paid, the grantee may introduce extrinsic evidence tending to show that such conveyance was in fact gratuitous and that the recital of payment was inserted to prevent him from being obliged to pay such amount.18

8 Herrin v. Abbe, 55 Fla. 769, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 907, 46 So. 183.

9 Herrin v. Abbe, 55 Fla. 769, 18 L. R A. (N.S.) 907, 46 So. 183.

10 California. Arp v. Ferguson, 175 Cal. 646, 166 Pac. 803.

District of Columbia. Main v. Aukaxn, 12 D. C. App. 375.

Illinois. Harts v. Emery, 184 111. 560, 56 N. E. 865 [affirming, 84 111. App. 317].

Iowa. Senninger v. Rowley, 138 Ia. 617, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 223, 116 N. W. 695.

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

11 California. Arp v. Ferguson, 175 Gal. 646, 166 Pac. 803.

Georgia. Carter v. Griffin, 114 Ga. 321, 40 S. E. 290; Thrower v. Baker, 144 Ga. 372, 87 S. E. 301.

Indiana. McDill v. Gunn, 43 Ind. 315; Lowery v. Downey, 150 Ind. 364, 50 N. E. 79.

Iowa. Lamb v. Tucker, 42 Ia. 118; Logan v. Miller, 106 Ia. 511, 76 N. W.

1005; Senninger v. Rowley, 138 Ia. 617, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 223, 116 N. W. 695.

Kansas. Hopper v. Calhoun, 52 Kan. 703, 39 Am. St. Rep. 363, 35 Pac. 816.

Michigan. Ford v. Savage, 111 Mich. 144, 69 N. W. 240; Clark v. Lowe, 113 Mich. 352, 71 N. W. 638.

Missouri. Bensick v. Cook, 110 Mo. 173, 33 Am. St. Rep. 422, 19 S. W. 642.

New Jersey. Ketcham v. Brooks, 27 N. J. Eq. 347.

Ohio. Society v. Haines, 47 O. S. 423, 25 N. E. 119.

Pennsylvania. Merriman v. Moore, 90 Pa. St. 78.

South Dakota. Miller v. Kennedy, 12 S. D. 478, 81 N. W. 906.

Texas. Johnson v. Elmen, 94 Tex. 168, 86 Am. St. Rep. 845, 52 L. R. A. 162, 59 S. W. 253.

12 Michael v. Foil, 100 N. Car. 178, 6 Am. St. Rep. 577, 6 S. E. 264.

13 Post v. Gilbert, 44 Conn. 9.

14 Herrin v. Abbe, 55 Fla. 769, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 907, 46 So. 183; Becker v. Knudson, 86 Wis. 14, 56 N. W. 192.