
    Musgrove v. Hudson.
    On a question, whether or not a letter contains an acceptance of an order, the Court will look to the whole letter, and although it contains the words, “I shall accept,” if from the whole, it appear no acceptance was intended, it will be construed as a refusal.
    This action was originally brought before a justice, of the peace of Walker county, by E. Hudson, against E. G. Musgrove, to reeover fifteen dollars, the amount of an order drawn be one Glasscock, in favor of Hudson, on Mus^ grove. The cause was brought by appeal into the County Court. At the trial, Hudson, the plaintiff, to prove an ac-ceptance of the order offered in evidence, a letter, written by Musgrove to him, as follows: “Mr Elijah Hudson,, by these presents you will be informed, I do not know what is the amount of the order that you have from Glascock, whether it is for so much money, or for so many head of cattle; but be it for what it may, I shall accept in your hands, as I have an authorized agent in Blount county, near to Glasscock, and I have had ever since last spring, to settle with Glasscock on fair terms. The cattle are here in possession, will stay here until Glasscock complies with his contract, unless they are stolen,” &c. The defendant offered to prove by his own evidence on oath, that there was a mistake in the letter, the letter not being under seal, and the amount in controversy under twenty dollars. The Court rejected this explanatory evidence, as inadmissible, and gavejudgment for the plaintiff, to which the defendant excepted, and sued his writ of error to this Court.
    P. N. Wilson, for the plaintiff in error.
    Although the' words, “I shall accept,” are found in the letter, yet its whole tenor shews he did not thereby intend to accept it; the intent must govern in the construction, and here the intention to accept is repelled. It does not appear that the defendant was indebted to- the drawer, therefore if a promise at all, it is without consideration and void. 
       If this position is not tenable, then we say that the letter was ambiguous, and that parol evidence should have been received to explain it. And on the ground of mistake, parol evidence was proper, even to contradict it. This being an appeal, and for a sum under twenty dollars, the Court has all the powers of equity, and consequently,that to relieve against a mistake. By our statute, the party himself was a competent witness, and in several points of view, the evidence which was offered by the defendant below, was admissible. 
    
    Ellis, contra. The question of the competency of the party as a witness, does not arise here; the objection was not as to his competency, but as to the admissibility of what he offered to testify; he was rejected because he offered to contradict by parol, written evidence; and that too, made by himself, and in his own cause. It would be dangerous in the extreme, however, under any eircumstances, to permit a party when charged on his own act, to contradict the writing by swearing what his intention was, anc[ †0 say} although I informed you I did accept, yet my intention was otherwise. The rule of evidence cannot be denied, that parol pfoof cannot be received to contradict, vary, or add to an instrument in writing, but only to explain and elucidate it, and then only in case of a latent ambiguity. 
       Then is there such a latent ambiguity as authorizes explanation? The emphatic words are used, aocePt hands,” and these leave no doubt. The latter part of the letter is too ambiguous and uncertain, to destoy the force of language so positive.
    
      
      
         10 John; R. 412.11 John;. 221. 4 John, 296.
    
    
      
      
         2 Starkie Evid. 33, note 2. 3 Starkie 966,1029.1028 and Note. Phillips’ Ev; 77. Note B. 415. A. 2 Esp. N. P, 528, 5. 259 Note. 2 Dallas 70, 80,170,173,180 196. 4 Dallas 132. 1 Term 182. 2 Term 371. 2‘Vern, 98. 4 Cranch 172. 5Vesey 87.7 Mass.R, IXall. 410. 2 lb. 239. 4 Esp. Cas, 189.1 John. Cas. 145. 2John.R.378.. 31b. 319. 5 John. C8. 8 lb. 389,9 lb. 310. 12 lb. 513.161b. 14.
      
    
    
      
       11 John.201. Evtioose?S I Car. Law It • 875 PMftTi’ Ev. Ch! lif II Mass. R.
    
   By JUDGE COLLIER.

We are of opinion that a just interpretation of the letter, is a refusal by the plaintiff in error, to accept the order of Glasscock. On the point, ■whether the mistake in the letter can be corrected by oral proof, as it is unnecessary to consider it, we forbear an expression of opinion.

Judgment reversed.  