the possibility of a doubt that the bonds were never placed in William Haseleu’s hands for sale, or negotiation for sale, or for any purpose. The fact is made perfectly clear by the undisputed testimony that Haseleu never sold the bonds, and never negotiated with Ingersoll for their sale, either as treasurer, or in his private capacity, or at all. On the other hand, the evidence leaves no room for doubt that the board, acting in concert and collectively, ‘did execute and did issue” the bonds as alleged in the 6th paragraph of the complaint. Not only did the board “execute and issue” the bonds, but it also delivered the bonds to the cashier, and no other delivery appears ever to have been made. Counsel for appellant points to the terms of the writing signed by the cashier and delivered to Haseleu at the time the bonds were handed to the cashier. It reads, “Received of William Haseleu, Treas.” etc., and counsel's contention is that the writing shows on its face that the treasurer delivered the bonds to the cashier, and that the writing is the best evidence of the transaction, and excludes any parol evidence which contradicts or varies the terms of the writing. It is true that the terms of the writing, when unexplained, are such as to indicate that the treasurer did deliver the bonds to the cashier; but, as has been seen, the writing was executed in a transaction had between the school board and the cashier of the bank, and the treasurer, as such, was not a party to it. In such a case the rule excluding parol evidence does not apply. 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 95. If the instrument can properly be classed as a receipt, the rule does not apply, and the parol evidence would, in that view, of course, be admissible; but we think the instrument partakes of a dual character, and is in part a receipt and in part a contract. In such instruments the rule is that the part which is a receipt may be explained or varied by parol. Morris v. Railroad Co., 21 Minn. 91; Burke v. Ray, 40 Minn. 34, 41 N. W. Rep. 240. We think the writing is clearly a mere receipt, except as to that part in which it is stated that the bonds were received “for placing and credit.” Hence the evidence outside the writing was proper to show the
