| Ark. | May 6, 1899
(after stating the facts.) There is no ambiguity in the meaning of the note guarantied by the appellees, and its proper construction was that asked to be placed upon it in the fourth instruction asked for by the plaintiff, which the court refused to give, and in so doing committed error, in our opinion.
The testimony of Waller and of Couey was incompetent, and the court erred in admitting it. It tended to contradict or vary the terms of an unambiguous written contract.
For the errors indicated the judgment is reversed, and judgment is ordered to be rendered below for plaintiff, for which purpose let the case be remanded.