The parol evidence rule presupposes an action based on a valid contract, and between the parties thereto or those claiming under them or those claiming under such contract as beneficiaries. If the issue is as to the existence or validity of the contract, the rule by its very terms has no application and extrinsic evidence is necessarily admitted to determine such issue, whether such evidence tends to establish the validity.1 or the invalidity,2 of the contract in question. Specific instances of the application of this principle will be given in the following sections.

Contra, that such joint wrongdoer is not a stranger to the instrument. Allen v. Ruland, 79 Conn. 405, 118 Am. St. Rep. 146, 65 Atl. 138; Goss v. Ellison, 136 Mass. 503.

If the release is given to one who is not a wrongdoer at all, the real wrongdoer can not take advantage thereof. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Co. v. Hall, 125 Inci. 220, 25 N. E. 219

2Matheson v. O'Kane, 211 Mass. 01, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 475. 07 N. E. 638.

3 Ellis v Esson. 50 Wis. 138, 36 Am. Rep. 830, 6 N. W. 518.

4 See Sec. 1160 et seq.

5 Nashville Interurban Ry. v. Gregory, 137 Tenn. 422, 193 S. W. 1053.

6 Ryan v. Becker, 136 Ia. 273, 14 L R. A. (N.S.) 329, 111 N. W. 426.

7 Ryan v. Becker, 136 Ia. 273, 14 L. R A. (N.S.) 329, 111 N. W. 426.

6 Randall v. Gerrick. 93 Wash. 522. L. R. A. 1918D, 179, 161 Pac. 357.

1 Verzon v. McGregor, 23 Cal. 339; Black v. Ry., 111 111. 351, 53 Am. Rep. 628; Uhl v. Moorhous, 137 Ind. 445, 37 N. E. 366; Safranski v. Ry., 72 Minn. 1S5, 75 N. W. 17.

2 Arkansas. Little v. Arkansas National Bank, 105 Ark. 281, 152 S. W. 281.