
    No. 6190.
    Crescent Mutual Ins. Co. vs. Thomas Hunton.
    Where there is a doubt as to what is the precise subject-matter of a written contract, or where the contract is silent about it, the parties may shew by parol testimony what the real subject-matter of the contract was. Parol proof does not in such case contradict the written act, but elucidates and makes apparent what it was that the parties contracted about, and is no more a contradiction of the act than would be evidence tending to identify an object sold by written contract.
    Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans. Lynch, J.
    
      
      Cohen for Plaintiff Appellant. W. W. King for Defendant.
   Spencer, J.,

delivered the opinion affirming the judgment, De Blanc, J., dissenting.  