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 instrument is not dated, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the true date.1 If the date of the contract is the question at issue, evidence of prior written negotiations is admissible to show the actual date of the instrument.2 Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the date at which the certificate of the notary to the acknowledgment was signed.3 The parol evidence rule does not prevent one of the parties to a written contract from showing the true date thereof, even if such evidence contradicts the recitals of the written instrument.4 Thus extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that a sealed contract was delivered at a time subsequent to its date.5 On the other hand, where an instrument has been antedated intentionally by agreement between the parties, extrinsic evidence has been said to be inadmissible to show the true date.6 If an insurance policy is antedated by mutual agreement, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the party had agreed that the policy would remain in force for the stipulated time after the true date.7
8 Goodwin v. Norton, 92 Me. 532, 43 Atl. 111.
9 Tate v. Torcutt, 100 Mich. 308, 5S N. W. 093.
10 White Sewing Machine Co. v. Atkinson, 126 Ark. 204, 190 S. W. 111.
11 White Sewing Machine Co. v. Atkinson, 126 Ark. 204, 190 S. W. 111.
1 Ehrman v. Stitzel, 121 Ky. 751, 123 Am. St. Rep. 224, 90 S. W. 275; Lewis Hubbard & Co. v. Morton, 80 W. Va. 137, 92 S. E. 252.
2 Hamilton Iron & Steel Co. v. Grove-land Mining Co., 233 Fed. 388, 147 C. C. A. 324.
3 South Penn Oil Co. v. Blue Creek Development Co., 77 W. Va. 682, 88 S. E. 1029.
4 England. Oshey v. Hicks, Cro. Jac. 263; Jayne v. Hughes, 10 Exch. 430; Steele v. Mart, 4 Barn. & C. 272; Hall v. Cazenove, 4 East 477.
Arkansas. Merrill v. Sypert, 65 Ark. 51, 44 S. W. 462; Breitzke v. Tucker, 129 Ark. 401, 196 S. W. 462. California. Gately v. Irvine, 51 Cal.
Indiana. Lake Erie, etc., Ry v. Charman, 161 Ind. 95, 67 N. E. 923.
Kentucky. Tribble v. Oldham, 28 Ky. (5 J. J. Mar.) 137.
Massachusetts. Shaugnessey v. Lewis,
130 Mass. 355.
Mississippi. Lexington v. Bank, 75 Miss. 1, 22 So. 291; Hinson v. Forsdick (Miss.), 25 So. 353.
Nebraska. State v. Moore, 46 Neb. 590, 50 Am. St. Rep. 626, 65 N. W. 193.
Ohio. Fisher v. Butcher, 19 Ohio 406. 53 Am. Dec. 436.
Pennsylvania. Parke v. Neeley, 90 Pa. St. 52.
Tennessee. Alexander v. Bland, Cooke (Tenn.) 431.