Roebuck v. . Carson
146 S.E. 708
N.C.
1929
Check Treatment
Beogdbn, J.

If promissory, negotiable notes are duly executed and delivered, payable upon certain dates therein specified, can the maker thereof, as against the payee therein, set up a contemporaneous verbal agreement to the effect that the notes would not become payable until the death of the maker ?

The principle of law governing the controversy is thus stated in Fertilizer Co. v. Eason, 194 N. C., 244, 139 S. E., 376: “If a contract is not within the statute of frauds the parties may elect to put their agreement in writing, or to contract orally, or to reduce some of the terms to writing and leave the others in parol. If a part be written and a part verbal, that which is written cannot ordinarily be aided or contradicted by parol evidence, but the oral terms, if not at variance with the writing, may be shown in evidence; and in such case they supplement the writing, the whole constituting one entire contract.”

The test is whether the oral terms vary or contradict the writing. This idea was expressed by the Court in White v. Fisheries Co., 183 N. C., 228, 111 S. E., 182, as follows: “It is true that a contract may be partly in writing and partly oral (except when forbidden by the statute of frauds), and that in such eases the oral part of the agreement may be shown. But this is subject to the well established rule that a contemporaneous agreement shall not contradict that which is written. The written word abides, and is not to be set aside upon the slippery memory of man.”

*674 Tbe alleged contemporaneous agreement, in tbe case at bar, clearly varies or contradicts tbe express terms of tbe notes. Tbe exact point was decided in Hilliard v. Newberry, 153 N. C., 104, 68 S. E., 1056, in wbicb tbe Court said: “Tbe claim tbat there was a contemporaneous oral agreement to tbe effect tbat tbe time could be further extended is in direct contradiction to tbe written stipulation of tbe agreement, and under several recent decisions of tbe Court such a position was not open to defendant.” Walker v. Venters, 148 N. C., 388, 62 S. E., 510; Boushall v. Stronach, 172 N. C., 273, 90 S. E., 198; Cherokee County v. Meroney, 173 N. C., 653, 92 S. E., 616; Mfg. Co. v. McCormick, 175 N. C., 277, 95 S. E., 555.

There are certain exceptions to tbe rule recognized by law. Tbe most frequent exceptions may be classified as follows:

1. Parol evidence is admissible to show tbat tbe contract was delivered upon condition precedent, or tbat tbe obligation was not to be assumed at all except upon certain contingencies. Evans v. Freeman, 142 N. C., 61, 54 S. E., 847; Aden v. Doub, 146 N. C., 10, 59 S. E., 162; Basnight v. Jobbing Co., 148 N. C., 350, 62 S. E., 420; Building Co. v. Sanders, 185 N. C., 328, 117 S. E., 3; Overall Co. v. Hollister Co., 186 N. C., 208, 119 S. E., 1.

2. Parol evidence is admissible to show a different method of payment. Bank v. Winslow, 193 N. C., 470, 137 S. E., 320.

3. Tbe rule excluding parol evidence because it varies or contradicts tbe written contract does not apply when a modification of tbe contract is made after tbe contract has been executed, unless of course tbe law requires a writing. Freeman v. Bell, 150 N. C., 146, 63 S. E., 682; McKinney v. Matthews, 166 N. C., 576, 82 S. E., 1036; Fertilizer Co. v. Eason, 194 N. C., 244, 139 S. E., 376.

Tbe facts disclosed in tbe present record do not bring tbe case at bar within any of tbe exceptions recognized by law, and therefore the ruling of tbe trial judge was correct.

Affirmed.