McDaniels v. United Railways of St. Louis, 165 Mo. App. 678, 148 S. W. 464; Kahn v. Kahn, 94 Tex. 114, 58 S. W. 825; Walter v. Dearing - (Tex.) - 65 S. W. 380; Pierce v. Brew, 43 Vt. 292; Union Machinery & Supply Co.

81. Ante, this section, note 75.

82. Ante, this section, note 76.

83. Winningharn v. Pennock, 36 Mo. App. 688; Yates v. Burt, 161 Mo. App. 267, 14.", S. W. 73: Burrage v. Bear Isley, 16 Ohio, 438; Patterson v. Lamson, 45 Ohio St. 77, 12 N. E. 531; Groves v. Groves. 65 Ohio St- 442, 62 N-e- 1044.

That the conveyance cannot be supported as a covenant to stand seised when a valuable consideration alone is recited. See Bedell's Case 7 Co. Rep. 13:'.. Foster v. Foster. Tho. Raym. 43. 1 Lev. 55; Elysville Co. v. Okisko, 1 Md. Ch. 315; Contra, Gale v.

Coburn, Is Pick. (Mass.) 397. And see Miller v. Goodwin, 8 Gray (Mass.) .542, where evidence that the consideration was marriage was admitted for this purpose, though the deed recited merely past services as a consideration84- Morton v. Morton, 82 Ark. 492, 102 S. W- 213; Peck v-vandenberg, 30 Cal- 11; Carty v. Connolly, 91 Cal. 15, 27 Pac- 599; Meeker v. Meeker, 16 Conn. 387; Leggett v. Patterson. 114 Ga. 714, 40 S. E. 736; Rickhill v. Spraggs, 9 Ind- 30; Kenney v. Phillippy, 91

2 R. P. - 28 of love and affection as the consideration does not preclude a showing of a valuable consideration.85

The right to show that the consideration for a conveyance which recites a valuable consideration was, while a thing of value, a thing of a different kind, as for instance, merchandise instead of money, has been generally recognized.86

Ind. 511; Finch v. Garrett, 102 Iowa, 381, 71 N. W-.429; Crafton v. Inge, 124 Ky. 89, 98 S. W. 325; Koogle v. Cline, 110 Md. 587, (semble), 24 L. R. A. (N. S) 413, 73 Atl 672; Gale v. Coburn, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 397; Harman v-fisher, 90 Neb- 688, 39 L R. A. (N. S.) 157, 134 N. W. 246; Sneer v. Speer, 14 N. J. Eq. 240; Voigt v. Dowe, 74 N. J. Eq. 560, 70 Atl. 344; Palmer v. Culbertson, 143 N. Y. 213, 38 N. E. 199; Barbee v Barbee, 108 N. C. 581, 13 S. E. 215; Shehy v. Cunningham, 81 Ohio St. 289, 25 L- R. A-(n- S.) 1194, 90 N. E 805; Velten v. Carmack, 23 Ore. 282, 20 L. R. A. 101, 31 Pac. 658; Lewis v. Brewster, 57 Pa. St. 410; Wolf v. King, 49 Tex- Civ. App. 41, 107 S. W. 617; Bruce v. Slemp, 82 Va. 352. 4 S. E. 692.

85. Attwell v. Harris, 2 Roll Rep. 91; Gale v. Williamson, 8 Mees. & W. 405 (as against creditors) ; Harman v. Richards, 10 Hare 81 (as against creditors); Leahy v. Dancer, 1 Molloy 313 (to show purchaser for value).

Tompson v. Cody, 100 Ga. 771, 28 S- E. 669; Nichols, Shepherd & Co- v. Burch, 128 Ind. 324, 27 N. E. 737; Chantland v. Sherman, 148 Iowa, 352, 125 N. W. 871; Thomas v. Smith. 6 Ky L. Rep. 737; Scudder v. Morris, 107 Mo.

App. 634, 82 S- W. 217; Lewis v. Brewster, 57 Pa. St. 410 (dictum); Ferguson v. Harrison, 41 S. C. 340, 19 S. E. 19; Contra-potter v. Gracie, 58 Ala. 303; Baxter v. Sewell, 3 Md. 334; El-linger v. Crowl, 17 Md. 361; Latimer v. Latimer, 53 S. C. 483, 31 S. E. 304. And see Ogden State Bank v. Barker, 12 Utah 13, 40 Pac. 765.

86. Townend v. Toker, L. R. 1 Ch. 446; Bailey v. Litten, 52 Ala-282; Harraway v- Harraway, 136 Ala. 499, 34 So. 836; St. Louis & N. R. R. Co. v. Crandall, 75 Ark. 89, 112 Am. St Rep. 42, 86 S. W-855; Carty v. Connolly, 91 Cal. 15. 27 Pac. 599; Droop v- Ride-nour, 11 App. D. C. 224; Stone v. Minter, 111 Ga. 45, 50 L. R. A. 356, 36 S. E. 321; Kintner v. Jones, 122 Ind. 148, 23 N. E. 701; Bristol Sav. Bank v. Stiger, 86 Iowa, 344, 53 N. W. 265; Twomey v. Crowley, 137 Mass. 184; Edwards v. Latimer, 183 Mo. 610, 82 S. W. 109; Lake v. Bender, 18 Nev. 361, 4 Pac. 711; 7 Pac. 74; Medical College Laboratory v. New York University, 178 N. Y. 153. 70 N. E. 467; Price v. Harrington, 171 N. C. 132, 87 S. E. 986; Conklln v. Hancock, 67 Ohio St. 455. 66 N. E. 518; Barnes v. Black, 193 Pa. 447, 74 Am. St. Rep. 694, 44 Atl.

As it is not permissible to introduce evidence as to the consideration in contradiction of the consideratior clause in so far as such clause is contractual in character, or is otherwise intended to have a legal effect,87 so it is not permissible to introduce evidence as to the consideration in contradiction of any other clause which is contractual in character or intended to have a legal effect.88 Accordingly, the language of the instrument being such as to vest in the grantee an estate free from any condition subsequent or limitation over, it cannot be shown, under the pretext of proving the real consideration, that there was such a condition or limitation.89 And for the same reason, it appears, one cannot, after purporting to convey land, restrict the operation of the instrument by introducing evidence that it was agreed, as part consideration of the conveyance, that some part of what would otherwise pass by the conveyance, the growing crop for instance, or fixtures, should not pass.90 And the oral reservation of an easement cannot be asserted under the pretext of showing the consideration.91

550 (semble); Whitman v. Corley, 72 S. C. 410, 52 S. E. 49; Tipton v. Tipton, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 619, 105 S. W. 830, 118 S. W. 842; Martin v. Hall, 115 Va. 358, 79 S. E. 320; Wilfong v. Johnson, 41 W. Va. 283, 23 S. E. 730. Contra, Thompson v. Corrie, 57 Md. 197; Lawson v. Mullinix, 104 Md. 156, 64 Atl. 938.

87 Ante, this section, note 80.

88. Jensen v. Crosby, 80 Minn. 158, 83 N. W. 43; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Willbanks, 133 Ga. 15, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 374, 17 Ann. Cas. 860, 65 S. E. 86; Miller v. Edgerton, 38 Kan. 36, 15 Pac. 894.

89. Erfurth v. Erfurth, 90 Wash. 521, 156 Pac. 523.

But it has been decided that though a money consideration is recited, it may be shown that the conveyance was made in consideration of a contract to support the grantor, a failure to comply with which justified a rescission. Martin v. Hall, 115 Va. 358, 79 S. E. 320; Furst v. Galloway, 56 W. Va. 246, 49 S. E. 146; Wilfong v. Johnson, 41 W. Va. 283, 23 S. E. 730. See ante, Sec. 89.

90. Adams v. Watkins, 103 Mich. 431, 61 N. W. 774: Kamm-rath v. Kidd, 89 Minn. 380, 99 Am. St. Rep. 603, 95 N. W. 213: Stewart v. Mcarthur, 77 Iowa, 162. 41 N. W. 604.

91. Louisville & N. R. Co. v.

In accordance with the rule above referred to, that evidence of the consideration is not admissible in contradiction of a clause of the convevance intended to have a contractual or other legal effect, are decisions that, when the instrument contains a covenant against incumbrances or of warranty it cannot be shown that, as part consideration for the conveyance, the grantee orally assumed the payment of a particular incumbrance, not excepted in terms from the covenant, since this involves a direct contradiction of the language of the covenant.92 It must be conceded, however, that there are a considerable number of decisions to an opposite effect, that the grantee's oral assumption of an incumbrance may be shown to affect the liability under the covenant against incumbrances.93 Occasionally these latter decisions are based on the theory, a sound one, it would seem,94 that the assumption merely serves to aid in the construction of the covenant, but some are based on the theory that it serves to show the consideration. If evidence of a contract which involves a direct conwillbanks, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 375, 133 Ga. 15, 65 S. E. 86: Schrimper v. Chicago M. & S. & P. R. Co., 115 Iowa, 35, 82 N. W. 916, 87 N. W. 731; Pickett v. Mercer, 106 Mo. App. 689, 80 S. W. 285; Trout v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 107 Va. 576, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 702, 59 S. E. 394; Mat-tism v. Chicago etc., R. C, 42 Neb. 545, 60 N. W. 925.

92. Johnson v. Walter, 60 Iowa, 315, 14 N. W. 325; Flynn v. Bourneuf, 143 Mass. 277. 58 Am. Rep. 138, 9 N. E. 815; Simanovich v. Wood, 145 Mass. 180, 13 N. E. 391; Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. Gibby Foundry Co., 194 Mass. 259, 80 N. E. 479; Burns v. Schreiber, 43 Minn. 468, 45. N. W. 861; Rooney v. Kornig, 80 Minn. 483, 83 N. W. 399;

Tradiction of an operative part of an instrument is admissible merely because it serves to show the consideration received by one or the other of the parties, contracts contradictory of other parts may also be shown, and in this way "a solemn and executed written contract would be totally eaten away."95 - 96

Lamoille County Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Belden, 90 Vt. 535, 98 Atl. 1002; Patterson v. Cappon, 125 Wis. 198, 102 N. W. 1083.

93. Henderson v. Tobey, 105 111. App. 154; Carver v. Louthain, 38 Ind. 530; Hays v. Peck, 107 Ind. 389, 8 N. E. 274; Blood v. Wilkins, 43 Iowa, 565; Wachen-dorf v. Lancaster, 66 Iowa, 458, 23 N. W. 522; Burnham v. Dorr, 72 Me. 198; Landman v. Ingram, 49 Mo. 212; Gill v. Ferrin, 71 N. H. 421, 52 Atl. 558; Deaver v. Deaver, 137 N. C. 240, 49 S. E. 113; Johnston v. Markle Paper Co., 153 Pa. St. 195, 25 Atl. 560, 885; Johnson v. Elmen, 94 Tex. 168, 52 L. R. A. 162, 86 Am. St. Rep. 845, 59 S. W. 253.

94. Post. Sec. 452. note 42a.