...imply absolute verity. Shankland v. Washington, 5 Pet. 390, 8 L. Ed. 166. It is a fundamental rule that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to...contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument, unless in cases where contracts are vitiated by fraud or mutual mistake, but this rule is too well...

...cited. In Emory vs. Webster, 42 Maine, 204, the court say : "The rule of law is unquestioned that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument, but the rule is directed only against the admission of any other evidence of the language employed...

...authorities as applicable to such cases. It is a fundamental rule, in courts both of law and e<juity, that not, on property covered in whole or in part by this...policy," and that "no officer, agent, or other represent This rule is thus expressed in Greenleaf on Evidence, 12th ed. § 275. "When parties have deliberately...

...possibly, of one of the parties, is rejected. In other words, as the rule is now more briefly expressed, " parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible, to...or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." § 276. This rule " was introduced in early times, when the most frequent mode of ascertaining a party...

...addition to a written contract by such a verbal agreement comes clearly within the well-known rule " that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to...or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 285, 282; 1 Div. Pr. Act, § 610. That portion of the contract (article 3) between...

...evidence, which was overruled by the court, and excepted to by the plaintiff. The rule is that pa rol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument, but this rule is not infringed by the admission of parol evidence showing that the instrument Is void...

...escrow." In Gamble v. Riley, 39 Okl. 363, 135 Рас. 390, this court says: "It is elementary that pnrol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. But the rule is almost equally well settled that parol evidence may be given to prove the existence...

...secure the fee. Judgment affirmed. ANGIER et al. vs. BREWSTER. 1. While ordinarily parol testimony is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written contract which is plain and unambiguous on its face, yet if there has been fraud in the execution of...

...be bound. Notwithstanding the unquestioned rule, as briefly stated in 1 Greenl. Ev. § 275, " that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to...or vary the terms of a valid written instrument," yet, in the nature of things, in its application to the measureless variety of circumstances attendant...

...light of the circumstances under winch they are made, and this is no infringement of the rule that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument. Showing the circumstances under which the contract is made, and the subject-matter...