The rule of law is well established, that parol evidence cannot be admitted to alter, vary, or control a written contract; nor to annex thereto a condition or defeasance not appearing in the contract itself; nor to show that the parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the writing signed by them. (Underwood v. Simonds, 12 Met. 277; Buckley v. Bentley, 48 Barb. 283; 2 Wharton's Evidence, sec. 1058; Forsythe v. Kimball , 91 U.S. 291; Burt v. Tilley, 49 Barb. 599; 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 501-4; 2 Wait's Law and Practice, 2nd ed. p. 450.)
Even if the alleged agreement in the case under discussion had distinctly referred to the note sued on, which it did not do, it would be no bar to the action, and the note would still be payable at its expressed maturity. (Dow v. Tuttle , 4 Mass. 414; Shed v. Pierce , 17 Mass. 623; Central Bank v. Willard, 17 Pick. 150; Porter v. Pierce, 2 Foster, 275; Chandler v. Herrick, 19 Johns. 129; Winans v. Huston, 6 Wend. 472; Atwood v. Lewis , 6 Mo. 392; Bircher v. Payne , 7 Mo. 462.)
OPINION By the Court:
The fifth and sixth subdivisions of the amended answer, and Exhibit A referred to therein, presented a valid defense to the action, and the Court below erred in striking out those portions of the answer and in sustaining the demurrer thereto.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with an order to the Court below to set aside the order striking out those portions of the amended answer, and to overrule the demurrer thereto. Remittitur forthwith.