5 United States. Rockefeller v. Mer-ritt, 76 Fed. 909, 35 L. R. A. 633, 22 C. C. A. 608; Kauffman v. Raeder, 108 Fed. 171, 54 L. R. A. 247. 47 C. C. A. 278; Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 553.

Alabama. Davis v. Robert, 89 Ala. 402, 18 Am. St. Rep. 126, 8 So. 114.

Colorado. Jennings v. Brotherhood Acc. Co., 44 Colo. 68, 96 Pac. 982.

Connecticut. Construction Information Co. v. Cass, 74 Conn. 213, 50 Atl. 563.

Indiana. Cravens v. Cotton Mills, 120 Ind. 6, 16 Am. St. Rep. 298, 21 N. E. 981.

Maine. Bell v. Jordan, 102 Me. 67, 65 Atl. 759.

Massachusetts. Rackemann v. Improvement Co., 167 Mass. 1, 57 Am. St. Rep. 427, 44 N. E. 990; Graves v. Apt, - Mass. - , 124 N. E. 432.

Missouri. Nordyke & Marmon Co. v. Kehlor, 155 Mo. 643, 78 Am. St. Rep. 600, 56 S. W. 287.

Nebraska. Nebraska Hardware Co. v. Humphrey Hardware Co., 81 Neb. 693, 116 N. W. 659.

North Carolina. McMahan v. Black Mountain Ry. Co., 170 N. Car. 456, 87 8. E. 237.

Ohio. Mosier v. Parry, 60 O. S. 388, 54 N. E. 364.

Tennessee. Lancaster Mills v. Cotton-press Co., 89 Tenn. 1, 24 Am. St. Rep. 586, 14 S. W. 317; McKay v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 133 Tenn. 590, 182 S. W. 874.

The purpose of the contract will be considered as affecting damages. Ross v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 114 Me. 287, 96 Atl. 223.

Such evidence is not admissible if the purpose is set out in the written contract. Bockian v. United Candy Co., 91 N. J. L. 314, 102 Atl. 393.

West Virginia. White v. White, 64 W. Va. 30, 60 S. E. 885; Short v. Pat-ton, 79 W. Va. 179, 90 S. E. 598.

6 McConnell v. Harrell & Nicholson Co., 183 Mich. 369, 149 N. W. 1042.

7 Anse La Butte Oil & Mineral Co. v. Babb, 122 La. 415, 47 So. 754.

8 Connecticut. Goldfarb v. Cohen, 92 Conn. 277, 102 Atl. 649.

Kansas. Clark v. Townsend, 96 Kan. 650, 153 Pac. 555 [rehearing denied,

Clark v. Townsend, 06 Kan. 650, 154 Pac. 1009].

South Dakota. Janssen v. Muller, 38 S. D. 611, 162 N. W. 393.

Virginia. Walker v. Gateway Milling Co., 121 Va. 217, 92 S. E. 826.

Washington. Velikanje v. Dickman, 98 Wash. 584, 168 Pac. 465.

See, however, Snider v. Robinett, 78 W. Va. 88, 88 S. E. 599.

Prior dealings between the parties may be considered. Southern Publishing Association v. Clements Paper Co., 139 Tenn. 429, L. R. A. 1918D, 580, 201 S. W. 745.

They will be considered to determine whether a provision is for a penalty or for liquidated damages. United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 205 U. S. 105, 51 L. ed. 731.

9 See $2036.

10 Bockian v. United Candy Co., 91 N. J. L. 314, 102 Atl. 393; Snider v. Robinett, 78 W. Va. 88, 88 S. E. 599. See Sec. 2137 et seq.

11 Polebitzke v. Week Lumber Co., 163 Wis. 322, 158 N. W. 62.

12 Cambria Iron Co. v. Keynes, 56 O. 8. 501, 47 N. E. 548; Third National Bank v. Laidlaw, 86 O. S. 91, 98 N. E. 1015.

13 Mosier v. Parry, 60 O. S. 388, 54 N. E. 364.

14 Lancaster Mills v. Cotton-press Co., 89 Tenn. 1, 24 Am. St. Rep. 586, 14 S. W. 317.

15 United States. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Telephone Co., 105 Fed. 684.

Idaho. State v. Twin Falls Land & W. Co., 21 Ida. 410, L. R. A. 1916F, 236, 121 Pac. 1039.

Kansas. Bank v. Brigham, 61 Kan. 727, 60 Pac. 754 [reversing, 58 Pac. 1117].

Massachusetts. Alvord v. Cook, 174 Mass. 120, 54 N. E. 499.

Michigan. White v. Rice, 112 Mich. 403, 70 N. W. 1024.

Montana. Brockway v. Blair, 53 Mont. 531, 165 Pac. 455.

North Carolina. Edwards v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 173 N. Car. 614, 92 S. E. 695.

Pennsylvania. Douthett v. Gas Co., 202 Pa. St. 416, 51 Atl. 981.

West Virginia. Uhl v. Ry., 51 W. Va. 106, 41 S. E. 340.

16 Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14, 39 Atl. 268.

17 Fearnley v. Fearnley, 44 Colo. 417, 98 Pac 819.

It is only when the contract is ambiguous that evidence of surrounding circumstances can be considered for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties.24 If the meaning of a written contract is clear, evidence of the surrounding facts is inadmissible to contradict its terms.25 Thus where in return for money put into his business by his wife a husband gives her a note, promising to pay her son $800 after her death, evidence of his means and the amount expended by him for her in her last illness is inadmissible to show that he is not liable on the note.26

18 Morrison v. Baechtold 93 Md. 319, 48 Atl. 926.

19Yorston v. Brown, 178 Mass. 103, 59 N. E. 654.

20 Redfield v. Gleason, 61 Vt. 220, 15 Am. St. Rep. 889, 17 Atl. 1075.

21 Irwin v. Powell, 188 111. 107, 58 N. E. 941.

22 Carr v. Jones, 29 Wash. 78, 69 Pac. 646.

23 Gregory v. Village of Lake Linden, 136 Mich. 368, 90 N. W. 29.

24 Jameson v. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co., 176 Cal. 1, 167 Pac. 369; Trumbauer v. Rust, 36 S. D. 301, 154 N. W. 801.

25 Alabama. Moody v. Ry., 124 Ala. 195, 26 So. 952.

Arkansas. Moore v. Terry, 66 Ark. 393, 50 8. W. 998.

California. Salter v. Ives, 171 Cal. 790, 155 Pac. 84; Jameson v. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co., 176 Cal. 1, 167 Pac. 369.

West Virginia. Camden v. McCoy, 48 W. Va. 377, 37 S. E. 637.

Wisconsin. Johnson v. Pugh, 110 Wis. 167, 85 N. W. 641.

26 Baxter v. Camp, 71 Conn. 245, 71 Am. St. Rep. 169, 42 L. R. A. 514, 41 Atl. 803. (Though in a suit by her administrator it might be available as a set-off.)