
    Zantzinger v. Ketch.
    
      Parol evidence.
    
    Parol evidence was admitted to explain the meaning of the words “ the deed of conveyance ” in articles of agreement, as meaning a deed conveying the land, free from all incumbrances.
    
    This was an action of debt, on articles of agreement to pay 1351., in two instalments, for lands bought by the defendant from the plaintiff ; and in the articles it was stipulated, that “ the deed of conveyance shall be made to the said Michael Ketch, at the first payment.”
    The defendant offered the parol testimony of a witness, who was present at the execution of the articles, to show that by the expression, “ the deed of conveyance,” the parties meant and understood, a “ deed conveying the land, free of all incumbrances.” *2 Ves. 299; Hurst v. Fell, in the p. „„ supreme court of Pennsylvania. *-
    The evidence was opposed, as tending to contradict the deed, whose expressions were clear, and did not require explanation.
    
      C. Smith, for the plaintiff. Hamilton, for the defendant.
    
      
      
         See on the admissibility of parol evidence, m variance of a written contract, Thomson v. White, 1 Dall. 424, and the notes; O’Hara v. Hall, 4 Id. 340; Christine v. Whitehill, 16 S. & R. 98: Hultz v. Wright, 16 Id. 345; Chess v. Chess, 1 P. & W. 32; Ingham v. Mason, Id. 389.
    
   The Court,

however, upon the authority of Hurst v. Fell, admitted the evidence, though with great reluctance; and declaring that they would reserve the point. But as the verdict was for the full amount of the plaintiff’s demand, the question was not revived. 
      
       This cause was tried at Carlisle nisi Shippen and Bradford, Justices. prius, on the 15th of May 1793, before
     