In an action to enjoin the erection of stores on land nearby appellants' homes, on the ground that such use of the land is prohibited under a declaration filed by a developer, and on the ground that oral representations, and reliance thereon, equitably estop respondents from erecting the stores, judgment entered in favor of respondents on the merits, after trial by the court without a jury, unanimously affirmed, with costs. We interpret the declaration as not imposing a restriction in use of the three-acre parcel in suit; and hold that testimony, as to oral representations and reliance thereon, is incompetent under the provisions in the written contracts, even assuming that the witnesses were not incompetent to testify under section 347 of the Civil Practice Act.