To justify the admission of a party's books of account on his own behalf, it is incumbent upon him to show by proper evidence that the record of the transactions is a faithful and honest one.59

Entries in an account book of plaintiff, who could not read or write, made by another on his dictation, may be received in evidence when verified by the testimony of the parties making them and of plaintiff that the items were correctly reported by him."" An unsigned memorandum cannot be introduced against a party, who is not shown to have known about it, to have seen it, or to have had anything to do with it."1

A letter cannot be admitted in evidence without being properly identified, and proof that it was written by the person whose signature it purports to bear.63

It is a sufficient identification of letters sought to be introduced against one by whom they are signed that they be received by due course of mail in answer to letters written and mailed to such person by the person who received the answer.64

39 First Nat. Bldg. Co. v. Vandenberg, 119 P. 224, 29 Okl. 583.

60 Merywethers v. Youmans, 105 P. 545, 81 Kan. 309.

61 Forbes v. Madden, 158 P. 850, 98 Kan. 559.

Where hay is reweighed at destination by association not authorized by statute to do public weighing, its scale tickets are not admissible to show such weights, unless identified and shown to be correct by competent testimony, as required by Rev. Laws 1910, § 5114. Oklahoma Hay & Grain Co. v. T. D. Randall & Co. (Okl.) 168 P. 1012.

62 National Surety Co. v. Oklahoma Nat. Life Ins. Co. (Okl.) 165 P. 161. 63 Clark v. Ford, 51 P. 938, 7 Kan. App. 332.

A letter not in response to a letter sent to alleged writer is not admissible until its authenticity has been established, either by proof that it was signed by purported signer or some one authorized to sign for him. Burke v. Smith, 57 Okl. 196, 157 P. 51.

Letters received by mail cannot, over objection, be admitted in evidence without proof of their authorship. Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, Pa., v. Dean, 57 Okl. 84, 156 P. 304.

A letter which is not a reply held inadmissible until its authenticity be established. Comanche Mercantile Co. v. McCall Co., 52 Okl. 782, 153 P. 675. 64 Huber Mfg. Co. v. Claudel, 80 P. 960, 71 Kan. 441.

In forcible entry and detainer by a grantee taking his deed subject to defendant's lease, letters passing between defendant from his lessor of such nature that they could not have passed between other parties were within the rule requiring authenticity to be established by handwriting, or by other proof. Williamson v. Davis (Okl.) 177 P. 567.

A banker doing business in Kansas, having in his charge collections for a corporation located at Dubuque, Iowa, corresponded through the mails with

Where all the negotiations between the parties to a case are included in letters and telegrams, and plaintiff offers a part of the correspondence, after having identified the same by one of defendants, it is permissible to have the witness, on cross-examination, to identify the balance of the correspondence with relation to the same transaction, and offer the same in evidence in connection with the cross-examination.65

As the law presumes that all acts are done in good faith until there is evidence to the contrary, a chattel mortgage, in evidence, containing the statement that the mortgaged property was owned entirely by and was then in possession of mortgagor at his home, fairly tends to prove the same, and will be regarded as prima facie evidence of the truth of the statement, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." 66

On an issue as to what was intended to be done in highway proceedings, some of the oral testimony conflicting with the official record of the proceedings, the court has the right to fall back on the full and accurate record of what was plainly done as the best evidence of what was intended. 67

A book of account is only presumptive and disputable evidence of the correctness of the entries therein appearing."

68

Mortality tables in general use by insurance companies, though competent, are not conclusive evidence of the probable duration. of life.69

Reports and acts of a guardian of minor's property and probate court's orders approving them are evidence of truth of statements

such corporation about the notes and orders in his hands for collection, and, in reply to his letters, received through the mails, from Dubuque, answers purporting to come from the company, and dictated by its secretary, but written with a typewriter. Held, that such letters were properly received as prima facie evidence, as having come from the company. Norwegian Plow Co. v. Munger, 35 P. 11, 52 Kan. 371.

Where, in an action for specific performance of a sale made by an agent, defendant claimed that he did not authorize the sale, it was error to admit in evidence a letter written by his son empowering the agent to accept the offer made, when there was no evidence that the son was authorized to act for his father. McGee v. Kroh, 24 P. 424, 44 Kan. 301.

65 Thayer v. Hoffman, 37 P. 125, 53 Kan. 723.

66 Cockrell v. Schmitt, 94 P. 521, 20 Okl. 207, 129 Am. St. Rep. 737.

67 Brack v. Ochs, 102 P. 479, 80 Kan. 433.

68 Navarre v. Honea, 139 P. 310, 41 Okl. 480.

69 San Bois Coal Co. v. Resetz, 143 P. 46, 43 Okl. 384.

contained therein, though not conclusive and rebuttable in action. on guardian's bond.70

An association is estopped to dispute the accuracy of its corporate minutes.71

DIVISION V.-PAROL AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE

§ 1020. Contracts

In the absence of fraud, duress, accident, or mistake, parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a valid unambiguous written contract."

72

70 Morgan v. American Surety Co. of New York, 103 Kan. 491, 175 P. 675. 71 Great Western Mfg. Co. v. Porter, 172 P. 1018, 103 Kan. 84.

72 Coyle v. Arkansas Valley & W. Ry. Co., 41 Okl. 648, 139 P. 294; Garber v. Hauser, 76 Okl. 292, 185 P. 436; Colonial Jewelry Co. v. Bridges, 144 P. 577, 43 Okl. 813; German Stock Food Co. v. Miller, 136 P. 426, 39 Okl. 634; Gamble v. Riley, 39 Okl. 363, 135 P. 390; Leasure v. Hughes (Okl.) 178 P. 696; Spaulding v. Howard, 51 Okl. 502, 152 P. 106; J. M. Hoard, Jr., Co. v. Grand Rapids Showcase Co. (Okl.) 173 P. 844; Read v. Dodsworth, 147 P. 799, 95 Kan. 117; Knote v. Bense, 146 P. 363, 94 Kan. 294; Moorehead v. Davis, 73 P. 1103, 13 Okl. 166; Futoransky v. Pope, 57 Okl. 755, 157 P. 905, L. R. A. 1916F, 548; Samuelson v. Palmer, 152 P. 627, 96 Kan. 587; Kirkbride Drilling & Oil Co. v. Satterlee, 121 P. 635, 32 Okl. 22; Garrison v. Kress, 91 P. 1130, 19 Okl. 433; McNinch v. Northwest Taresher Co., 100 P. 524, 23 Okl. 386, 138 Am. St. Rep. 803.

Where parties after negotiations commit their agreements to an unambiguous writing, it is to be presumed that every stipulation and material matter has been included therein, and parol evidence of preceding conversations or negotiations in conflict with written contract are inadmissible. Hudson v. Riley, 104 Kan. 534, 180 P. 198; Miller Bros v. McCall Co., 133 P. 183, 37 Okl. 634; Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. T. M. Richardson Lumber Co., 69 P. 938, 11 Okl. 585.

Where a contract rests partly in parol and partly in writing, the written part cannot be contradicted by parol evidence. Hope v. Peck, 132 P. 344, judgment vacated 38 Okl. 531, 134 P. 33.

Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a subscription to the capital stock of a corporation. Huster v. Newkirk Creamery & Ice Co., 141 P. 790, 42 Okl. 440, L. R. A. 1915A, 390.

The execution of a written contract supersedes all oral negotiations, and where a note is given as a subscription to a railroad, evidence of any representations made at the time of the execution is inadmissible to vary its conditions. Guthrie & W. R. Co. v. Rhodes, 19 Okl. 21, 91 P. 1119, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 490.

In an action for breach of a contract to sell land, testimony that the written contract did not express the agreement of the parties, and that both parties intended merely to make a proposition which either might accept or (929)

HON.PL.& PRAC.-59

An oral agreement altering an agreement in writing is not valid unless executed, and proof of its existence is not' competent to vary the terms of the written instrument.73

Parol evidence going to fix a definite time for delivery, where the written contract of sale specifies no time, is inadmissible.74

Where a written instrument, in addition to acknowledgment of delivery, contains an agreement to do anything in respect to the property delivered, as to the latter matter it cannot be contradicted or varied by parol testimony.75

76

Parol evidence has been held admissible to show that a written instrument is contemporaneous with another written instrument relating to the same transaction, the relation of parties to a writ ten contract, acceptance of an option, or the meaning of expressions in a tariff sheet.79

77

78

refuse, was properly excluded as varying the written contract by parol. Hampe v. Sage, 125 P. 53, 87 Kan. 536.

An ambiguous contract may be supplemented by extrinsic evidence as to intent. Kingfisher Mill & Elevator Co. v. Westbrook, 79 Okl. 188, 192 P. 209. 73 Page v. Geiser Mfg. Co., 87 P. 851, 17 Okl. 110.

74 Cameron Coal & Mercantile Co. v. Universal Metal Co., 110 P. 720, 26 Okl. 615.

A Kansas case has held that parol evidence was admissible to supplement and explain the written provisions of a contract containing no time limit. Kaul v. American Independent Tel. Co., 147 P. 1130, 95 Kan. 2.

75 Thompson v. Williams, 1 P. 47, 30 Kan. 114.

76 Wichita University v. Schweiter, 50 Kan. 672, 32 P. 352.

77 Parol evidence of the relation of the parties to a written contract, showing their profession or business, where not in conflict therewith, is admissible. Threlkeld v. Steward, 103 P. 630, 24 Okl. 403, 138 Am. St. Rep. 888.

78 Where defendant was in possession under a lease containing an option to purchase, evidence of defendant's parol acceptance of the option was competent to establish right to possession in the landlord's action to recover the same, but not to enforce the contract nor to try title. Powers v. Myers, 105 1'. 674, 25 Okl. 165.

79 Where the terms "compressed cotton, any quantity," and "uncompressed cotton, any quantity," are used in a tariff sheet without further amplifying words, the contemporaneous, practical construction placed thereon by the carrier and shippers as to baled cotton delivered for shipment in an uncompressed state with the understanding that it was to be compressed and then from the place of initial delivery transported to the place of original consignment, where there was no other, promulgated tariff rate between the designated point concerning cotton shipments, is competent evidence in determining the meaning of the terms. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Dodson & Williams, 107 P. 921, 25 Okl. 822, reversing judgment, Chicago, R. I, & P. Ry. Co. v. Dodson, 94 P. 673, on rehearing.

It is admissible to show what caused a party to obligate himself in writing to test the question whether he is legally bound, as the writing imports, or whether he is wholly or partially freed from liability thereon,80

§ 1021. Insurance policies

A policy of insurance, if its terms are free from doubt, cannot, at the instance of one of the parties, be altered or contradicted. by parol evidence, except in case of fraud, ambiguity, or mutual mistake, 81

§ 1022. Notes and indorsements

The terms of a plain promissory note cannot be varied by parol.82 Parol evidence contradicting indorsements on notes is generally inadmissible.83

80 Rice v. Rice, 165 P. 799, 101 Kan. 20.

81 Deming Inv. Co. v. Shawnee Fire Ins. Co., 83 P. 918, 16 Okl. 1, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 607; Brown v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., of Hartford, Conn., 52 Okl. 392, 153 P. 173; Gish v. Insurance Co. of North America, 87 P. 869, 16 Okl. 59, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 826.

An application for insurance was signed by the applicant without reading it, and he afterwards received the policy issued thereon, which he retained for several months without objection. Held, that in an action on a note given for a premium on the policy, no fraud in the procurement of the application being shown, the statements in the written application, could not be varied or contradicted by parol evidence. Walker v. State Ins. Co., 26 P. 718, 46 Kan. 312.

In action on insurance policy, it was error to admit parol evidence to vary the contract, unless the insurer was estopped to avail itself of the portions of the contract sought to be modified. Mercer v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 171 P. 412, 88 Or. 410.

82 First Nat. Bank of Hays City v. Staab, 102 Kan. 369, 171 P. 3. Where indorsements on a note give no notice of a denial of ownership urged as a defense, evidence of a parol agreement changing the terms of the note is inadmissible. Roebuck v. Citizens' Bank of Altoona, 100 P. 621, 79 Kan. 862.

Parol evidence is not admissible to show that a promissory note payable one day after date was to become due only after the sale of certain lots. Getto v. Binkert, 40 P. 925, 55 Kan. 617.

93 An indorsement, "Pay B., or order, for account of C.," is a contract in writing, and not subject to contradiction by parol evidence. Armour Bros. Banking Co. v. Riley County Bank, 1 P. 506, 30 Kan. 163.

C., a stranger to a note, took the same from H., one of two makers, with an indorsement plainly written thereon: "Paid by H., this September 5, 1882 [the date of its maturity], and transferred to C." "Without recourse. H.," and there was no mistake or fraud in the transaction. Held that, in