Wright v. Krouskop

I concur, but shall add a word on the question whether the evidence offered in support of the third defense should have been excluded on the ground that it tended to vary the terms of the note contrary to the parol evidence rule. If it be conceded that section 16 of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act does not alter the rule of the common law (see Bushnell v. Elkins, 34 Wyo. 495, 245 P. 304, 51 A. L. R. 13) excluding parol evidence to vary a written agreement, it does not follow that the evdience was inadmissible. It seems that the substance of the pleaded defense was that the note was…