
    JAMES WALLACE vs. BENJAMIN ROGERS.
    Where A. sold to B. several bags of hops, and gave a bill of parcels, stating th# number of bags, the weight, price, &c.> with these words, tl the hops are war- “ ranted to be first qualityin an action by B. against A. for a false warranty of the hops ; it was held, that A, was not precluded by the bill of parcels frora-shewing, that the hops were warranted, only in case they were carried by B. to a particular place.
    Case for a false warranty of certain hops sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, December 15, 1818.
    The cause was tried here at October term, 1821rupon the general issue. The plaintiff gave in evidence to the jury a bill of parcels, signed by the defendant, specifying the number of bags, the weight, and the price, with these words, “ the hops are warranted to be first quality and then introduced evidence to shew, that part of the hops were refuse, and the rest second quality.
    The defendant then introduced testimony to prove, that at the time the contract was made and the hops sold, it was agreed, that if the plaintiff should send the hops to Charles-town, in Massachusetts, to be inspected, the defendant should warrant them to be of the first quality ; but if sent to Canada or to New-York, then they were not to be considered as warranted. To the admission of this testimony,, the plaintiff objected, but it was admitted by the court, and the jury having returned a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff moved the court to grant a new trial.
    
      Wallace, for the plaintiff.
    
      B. M, Farley, for the defendant.
   By ike court.

It is well settled as a general rule, that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict, add to, or vary the terms of a written instrument.

But to this general rule there are exceptions. 7 Mass. Rep. 297, Barrett vs. Rogers.—2 D. & E. 366, Stratton vs. Rastall.—11 Mass. Rep. 27, Stackpole vs. Arnold.—6 ditto 430, Barker vs. Prentiss.—2 John. 378, House vs. Low.—3 ditto 319, M’Kinstry vs. Pearsall—5 ditto 68, Tobey vs. Barher.—8 ditto 389, Putnam vs. Lewis.—4 ditto 23, Kip vs. Deniston.—9 ditto 310, Johnson vs. Weed.—6 Cranch 318.-1 Strange 674.

(1) 3 Cranch sit, Harris

Arte! a bill of parcels has been decided to be within the •exceptions to the rule ;(1) and we are of opinion, that there -must be, in this case,

Judgment for the defendant.  