Construction of Bond — Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Vary Written Contract.
1. Where certain tenants in common entered into an obligation binding "themselves in this bond to resist by law any claim that may be set up by the heirs of Jno. M. Wilson, and in case of a law suit each is to bear his or her proportionate share," and afterwards the land is sold for partition and the purchaser (one of the tenants in common and a party to the obligation) is compelled to pay a certain sum for said Jno. M. Wilson's interest in the land; Held, that the obligation is not an indemnity so as to entitle the purchaser to reimbursement from the other parties thereto, but is simply an agreement to resist any claim that might be set up by Jno. M. Wilson's heirs.
2. Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract.
READE, J.
1. This is not to be treated as an original proceeding but as a motion founded upon a petition in the original proceeding for partition. There cannot therefore be any trouble about parties or about notice.
2. We agree with His Honor that the writing in question is not an indemnity but is simply a mutual agreement among the parties to it to resist any claim which might be set up by "the heirs of John M. Wilson" to a share in the estate of Isaac A. Wilson, bequeathed to him by his father.
3. We are also of the opinion that the parol evidence offered to prove that said writing was intended to be an indemnity was properly rejected. The rule is that parol evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract.
There is no error.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.