
    Martin Eberle et al., Plffs. in Err., v. Girard Life Ins., etc. Co., Exr.
    Evidence to establish a cotemporaneous oral agreement held not admissible.
    (Decided February 1, 1886.)
    
    Error to the Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia County to review a judgment for defendants in an action of replevin.
    Affirmed.
    
      A. Thompson for plaintiffs in error.
    
      John J. Bidgway, Jr., for defendants in error.
    Cited in Streator v. Paxton, 201 Pa. 135, 50 Atl. 926; Wodock v. Robinson, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. 503, 506, 28 W. N. C. 288, 4S Pliila. Leg. Int. 146.
    Note. — There must be an allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or of a parol promise subsequently broken, which induced the signing of the agreement, to justify the introduction of parol evidence, to vary the terms of a contract. Reilly v. Daly, 159 Pa. 611, 28 Atl. 493. In the latter ease it must appear that the writing was executed on the faith of such promise. Callan v. Luiens, 89 Pa. 134.
    See also editorial note to Durkin v. Cobleigh, 17 L. R. A. 270, as to admissibility of parol evidence to vary, add to, or alter written instruments.
   Per Curiam:

There was no error in rejecting the evidence. ‘ It does not tend to establish fraud, mistake, or trust. Its purpose is to establish a cotemporaneous parol agreement to change the effect of the written contract. All the facts alleged are insufficient for that purpose.

Judgment affirmed.  