This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
If the issue is in part as to the words of the instrument at the time of execution, extrinsic evidence is not only admissible but necessary to show such fact.1 Extrinsic evidence on the part of the grantor is admissible to show that a certain provision was not contained in a deed when he delivered it.2 If a waiver of protest and notice and a guarantee of payment appear over the signature of an endorser, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show whether such provision was written over his signature before or after he endorsed and delivered such instrument.3 If, however, the alteration does not modify the legal effect of the instrument, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that a different provision was in fact agreed upon.4 If the rate of interest is omitted the legal effect is that the legal rate of interest is intended and extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that a lower rate was agreed upon, even though such blank is subsequently filled by inserting the legal rate.5
Evidence is admissible to show when certain interlineations were made,6 as to show that such interlineations were inserted without authority and amounted to a forgery,7 or to show when and by.
10Safranski v. Ry., 72 Minn. 185, 75 N. W. 17.
11 Sears v. Daly, 43 Or. 346, 73 Pac. 5.
12 Sears v. Daly, 43 Or. 346, 73 Pac. 5.
1 White Sewing Machine Co. v. Atkinson, 126 Ark. 204, 190 S. W. 111; Forbes v. Madden, 98 Kan. 559, 158 Pac. 850; Grimes v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester & Dubuque Electric Traction Co., 133 Minn. 442, L. R. A. 1916F, 687, 158 N. W. 719.
2 Grimes v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester & Dubuque Electric Traction Co., 133 Minn. 442, L. R. A. 1916F, 687, 158 N. W. 719.
3 Forbes v. Madden, 98 Kan. 559, 158 Pac. 850.
4 Haas v. Commerce Trust Co., 194 Ala. 672, 69 So. 894.
5 Haas v. Commerce Trust Co., 194 Ala. 672, 69 So. 894.
6 Bradbury v. Nethercutt, 95 Wash. 670, 164 Pac. 194; Pancake v. Campbell County, 44 W. Va. 82, 28 S. E. 719.
7 Bradbury v. Nethercutt, 95 Wash. 670, 164 Pac. 194.
whom grantee's name was changed,8 or to show of what words the real contract consisted where certain terms are found to be crossed out and marked, "Not agreed to."9 In an action upon a written contract which is made by the acceptance of an order, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that the purchaser had attached to such written order an additional written stipulation reserving certain rights of revocation to himself,10 even though the written order provides that no agreement except such as is contained therein shall be a part of the contract.11