Gerspach v. Mullin

The first assignment of error is that parol evidence *600was introduced by the plaintiffs which contradicts the deed introduced by themselves.

We find that the evidence was introduced to explain how the cash payment was made, and not to contradict the deed. The evidence was therefore properly admitted.

The second error assigned is that parol evidence was introduced to prove the promise to pay the debt of a third person, which is in contravention of the prohibitory provisions of the code.

But we do not find any promise to pay the debt of a third person. There was then no reason why the testimony…