we Cases ruled and adjudged in the 1792. not take place in the writing. Ib. 388 was a fuggeition offrand gy`, and is referred to in 2 B1.Rep. r24r. r Vez. 457. wasamrllcake reftified by the minutes. The rule is always adheredép, l!l€“ there is fraud. The drawer of the articles there did not purfue the intent of the minutes. 2 Vez. 37;. Evidence is never ad- . mitted to contradiét a written agreement; but a fubfcqucnt a- greement may. The cafe of Harvey ·u. Harvey, referred- to in Fitz. 24o, was that of a deed made to fave an cltate from fe- ’ queliration, and this could not be infcrted. But without fueh foundation it would not be admillible. Paw. an Pa·wer.·, Inlr. p. T ‘ I4:. The following cafes fhew that the exceptions are thofe .`L n only which are {tated above. 2 Ark. 575. 3 Co. 155. 2.AtL _ .239. A blank left in a will, and no parol evidence admrtted. _ ' 2 dt/P. 333. 373. Declarations made at the execution of a " will refufed. 1 P. Wm. 3. The rule is laid down. 5 Bur. E . 362. 2 Very:. 98. 1 Brow:]. CZ:. 93. 94. Paw. ¤r1Cmt. 432, I Dall. RQ. 83. n But, by T1-ua Comer :·-The principle of this cafe has often been determined, The greateft injuftice would prevail if fuch . . teltimony were rejeéted. ’ " Brunronn, zyfiee :-I concur with the Court, upon the au- thority of HuM7·u. Kirfbride. I have never, it is true, been ful- ly fatisfled with that cafe: It goes one {tcp beyond that of urve rz. Harvey; and much farther than any other in the Englydy books. Yet, as it has often been recognized in this Courr, I feel myfelf bound by its authority! M•MmN
- On the trial of the caufe above reported. the plaintiff'; rounfol
vlfered as a witnefs jalm Field, the nominal plaintim the fuit being lla·· ted, and proved to be, for the benefit of Oxig: EJ' Irkzncnek. They ur- ged, that ho was a mere truftee, without any intereli whatever in the event of the caule. In .M*C·’enq¢·l:an ·v. Smit. lately determined ill the Common Pleas, it appeared. that after the {hit was brought. the plaintifiilrad become a bankrupt, but the allignees carried on the canle; and the plaintiff was admitted as a witnefs. relbrx ing the point as to isis competency; which was afterwards on full argument determined in the affirmative. A diltinétion was taken between a voluntary all fignmeut of 2 cbcre rn action, and one by operation of law. So in .M*ComL rn. Cox. 1 Dall. Rep. thc_p1ainti{l`washrld to have no power over the fuit. and therefore he could not bu liable to colis. R Lewis in reply. inliftcd, that .M·CIenacbrm U Scot wententrrely on F B 5 [ 2 the cornnuliivr: afiignmcnt, and did not apply at all to voluntary allig- • ‘ aces. ’i`he cafe in Gibb. I20· is not {`npported b. the cafes cited. In _ ‘ that in Jlfad. there referred to, the executor was not a party. { 1 In 3 I’. Wms- 181, the oppolite dorflrine is laid down. lnthis caii:.tho ` l Court would not have compelled theplaintiifs to lend their names; they l might have afligncd. Here thc plainttifs are certainly liable to coils; und in lla/den ·a.1·`irl>er, executor. the defendant was relirfed, tho' he hildaio ilitcreil in the event,and offered repay all the coils into Court. .l»ger.wU•
�
