Maryland. Brawner v. Staup (1863) 21 Md. 328; Nagengast v. Alz (1901) 93 Md. 522, 249 Atl. 333; Johnson v. Johnson (1902) 96 Md. 144, 53 Atl. 792; Collins v. Collins (1904) 98 Md. 473, 103 Am. St. Rep. 408, 57 Atl. 597, 1 Ann. Cas. 856; Kennedy v. McCann (1905) 101 Md. 643, 61 Atl. 625; Beachey v. Heiple (1917) 130 Md. 683, 101 Atl. 553.

Missouri. Phillips v. Overfield (1890) 100 Mo. 466, 13 S. W. 705; Childs v. Wesleyan Cemetery Asso. (1877) 4 Mo. App. 74.

New Jersey. Sayre v. Fredericks (1863) 16 N. J. Eq. 205; Tunnard v. Littell (1872) 23 N. J. Eq. 264; Parker v. Snyder (1879) 31 N. J. Eq. 164; Duvale v. Duvale (1896) 54 N. J. Eq. 581, 35 Atl. 750, modified on other grounds in (1897) 56 N. J. Eq. 375, 39 Atl. 687, 40 Atl. 440; Lowry v. Tivy (1908) 73 N. J. Eq. 387, 69 Atl. 172.

New York. Freeman v. Kelly (1839) 1 Hoffm. Ch. 90; Boyd v. M'Lean (1815) 1 Johns. Ch. 582; Botsford v. Burr (1817) 2 Johns. Ch. 405; Foote v. Colvin (1808) 3 Johns. 216, 3 Am. Dec. 478; Jackson ex dem. Livingston v. Bateman (1829) 2 Wend. 570; Lennon v. Bradley & C. Co. (1899) 27 Misc. 452, 59 N. Y. Supp. 277, affirmed in (1899) 46 App. Div. 621, 61 N. Y. Supp. 370; Sloan v. Macartney (1908) 58 Misc. 75, 108 N. Y. Supp. 840; Di Niscia v. Olsey (1914) 162 App. Div. 154, 147 N. Y. Supp. 198. Pennsylvania.

Crawford

V.

Thompson (1891) 142 Pa. 551, 21 Atl. 994.

Bennett V. Camp

Virginia. Bank of United States v. Carrington (1836) 7 Leigh, 566; Miller v. Blose (1878) 30 Gratt. 744; Woodward v. Sibert (1886) 82 Va. 441; Miller v. Miller (1901) 99 Va. 125, 37 S. E. 792; Straley v. Esser (1915) 117 Va. 135, 83 S. E. 1075. See also Parker v. Logan Bros. & Co. (1886) 82 Va. 376, 4 S. E. 613. Washington. Miles (1918) 102

894.

See Lanigan v. Wash. 82, 172 Pac.

England. Willis v. Willis (1740) 2 Atk. 71, 26 Eng. Reprint, 443; clear and satisfactory, United States.

Laughlin v. Mitchell (1882) 14 Fed. 382, affirmed in (1887) 121 U. S. 411, 30 L. ed. 987, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 923; Neely v. Boyd (1906) 76 C. C. A. 142, 145 Fed. 172; Peters v. McLaren (1914) 134 C. C. A. 198, 218 Fed. 410. See also Price v. Wallace (1917) 155 C. C. A. 61, 242 Fed. 221.

Alabama.-Brantley v. West (1855) 27 Ala. 542; Chambers v. Richardson (1876) 57 Ala. 85; Lehman v. Lewis (1878) 62 Ala. 129; Harden v. Darwin (1880) 66 Ala. 55; Jordan v. Garner (1893) 101 Ala. 411, 13 So. 678; Enterprise Auto Co. v. Huey (1920) 204 Ala. 635, 87 So. 91.

V.

Arizona. Costello v. Gleeson (1918) 19 Ariz. 532, 172 Pac. 730. Arkansas. Tillar Henry (1905) 75 Ark. 446, 88 S. W. 573; Crosby v. Henry (1905) Ark. 88 S. W. 949; Colegrove v. Colegrove (1909) 89 Ark. 182, 131 Am. St. Rep. 82, 116 S. W. 190; Tatum v. Bolding (1910) 96 Ark. 98, 131 S. W. 207; Doyle v. Davis (1917) 127 Ark. 302, 192 S. W. 229; Barron v. Stuart (1918) 136 Ark. 481, 207 S. W. 22. Wilson v. Warner (1911) 84 Conn. 560, 80 Atl. 718.

Connecticut.

Tennessee.

Robertson v. Maclin

District of Columbia. Cohen v.

Cohen (1893) 1 App. D. C. 240;
Ockstadt v. Bowles (1909) 34 App.
D. C. 58; Braxton v. Johnston (1910)
34 App. D. C. 386.
Georgia.

54 Ga. 212.

Illinois.

Morrison v. Ball (1875)

Low v. Graff (1875) 80 Ill. 368; Heneke v. Floring (1885) 114 Ill. 554, 2 N. E. 529; Thor v. Oleson (1888) 125 Ill. 365, 17 N. E. 780; McGinnis v. Jacobs (1893) 147 Ill. 24, 35 N. E. 214; Towle v. Wadsworth (1893) 147 Ill. 80, 30 N. E. 602, 35 N. E. 73; Koster v. Miller (1894) 149 Ill. 195, 37 N. E. 46; Goelz v. Goelz (1895) 157 Ill. 33, 41 N. E. 756; Jacksonville Nat. Bank v. Beesley (1895) 159 Ill. 120, 42 N. E. 164; Pool v. Phillips (1897) 167 Ill. 432, 47 N. E. 758; Euans v. Curtis (1901) 190 Ill. 197, 60 N. E. 56; Lurie v. Sabath (1904) 208 Ill. 401, 70 N. E. 323; Stambaugh v. Lung (1908) 232 Ill. 373, 83 N. E. 922; Keuper v. Mette (1909) 239 Ill.. 586, 88 N. E. 218; Trubey v. Pease (1909) 240 Ill. 513, 88 N. E. 1005, 15 Ann. Cas. 370; Stephens v. St. Louis Union Trust Co. (1913) 260 Ill. 364, 103 N. E. 190; Clavey v. Schnadt (1916) 272 Ill. 464, 112 N. E. 360; Lang v. Metzger (1902) 101 Ill. App. 380, affirmed in (1903) 206 Ill. 475, 69 N. E. 493; Mahan v. Schroeder (1908) 142 Ill. App. 538, affirmed in (1908) 236 Ill. 392, 86 N. E. 97.

Iowa. Thompson v. Ohl (1919) 187 Iowa, 654, 174 N. W. 446; Kelley v. Kelley (1920) 189 Iowa, 311, 177 N. W. 45; Shepard v. Pratt (1871) 32 Iowa, 296; Burns v. Byrne (1876) 45 Iowa, 285; Richardson v. Haney (1888) 76 Iowa, 101, 40 N. W. 115; Rogers v. McFarland (1893) 89 Iowa, 286, 56 N. W. 504; Maroney V. Maroney (1896) 97 Iowa, 711, 66 N. W. 911; Iseminger v. Criswell (1896) 98 Iowa, 382, 67 N. W. 289; Culp v. Price (1899) 107 Iowa, 133, 77 N. W. 848; Luckhart v. Luckhart (1903) 120 Iowa, 248, 94 N. W. 461; Cunningham v. Cunningham (1904) 125 Iowa, 681, 101 N. W. 470; Hoon v. Hoon (1905) 126 Iowa, 391, 102 N. W. 105, Re Fisher (1905) 128

Iowa, 18, 102 N. W. 797; Carr v. Craig (1908) 138 Iowa, 526, 116 N. W. 720; Henninger v. McGuire (1910) 146 Iowa, 270, 125 N. W. 180; Lillie v. Owen (1910) 147 Iowa, 290, 126 N. W. 188; Polsley V. Flowers (1910) 149 Iowa, 586, 128 N. W. 937; Matt v. Matt (1912) 156 Iowa, 503, 137 N. W. 489; Burch v. Nicholson. (1912) 157 Iowa, 502, 137 N. W. 1066; Hayes v. Dean (1917) 182 Iowa, 619, 164 N. W. 770.

Kentucky. Northcutt v. Hogan (1882) 4 Ky. L. Rep. 364; Kemper v. Kemper (1885) 7 Ky. L. Rep. 97; Pool v. Thomas (1888) 10 Ky. L. Rep. 92, 8 S. W. 198; Colliver v. Dougherty (1889) 10 Ky. L. Rep. 685; Nelson v. Nelson (1908) 29 Ky. L. Rep. 885, 96 S. W. 794; Snelling v. Utterback (1809) 1 Bibb, 609, 4 Am. Dec. 661.

Maryland. - Greer v. Baughman (1858) 13 Md. 257; Whitridge v. Parkhurst (1862) 20 Md. 62; McDonnell v. Milholland (1878) 48 Md. 540; Dixon v. Dixon (1910) 123 Md. 44, 90 Atl. 846, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 616.

Minnesota.

(1910) 159

Durfee v. Pavitt (1859) 14 Minn. 424, Gil. 319. Missouri. Gillespie v. Stone (1879) 70 Mo. 505; Roberts v. Walker (1890) 101 Mo. 597, 14 S. W. 631; Joerger v. Joerger (1906) 193 Mo. 133, 91 S. W. 918, 5 Ann. Cas. 534. Nebraska. Robinson v. Jones (1890) 31 Neb. 20, 47 N. W. 480; Veeder v. McKinley-Lanning Loan & T. Co. (1901) 61 Neb. 892, 86 N. W. 982; Smullin v. Wharton (1905) 73 Neb. 667, 103 N. W. 288, 106 N. W. 577, 112 N. W. 622, Drake v. Mc Donald 775, 137 N. W. 863.

New Hampshire. (1836) 8 N. H. 187.

113 N. W. 267; (1912) 91 Neb.

Page v. Page

New Jersey. Vreeland v. Williams (1880) 32 N. J. Eq. 734; Mc; Keown v. McKeown (1881) 33 N. J. Eq. 384, affirmed in (1881) 34 N. J. Eq. 560; Lipp v. Fielder (1907) 72 N. J. Eq. 439, 66 Atl. 189; Lowry v. Tivy (1908) 73 N. J. Eq. 387, 69 Atl.

172; Heinisch v. Pennington (1907) 73 N. J. Eq. 456, 68 Atl. 233, affirmed in (1909) 75 N. J. Eq. 606, 73 Atl. 1118; Aumack V. Jackson (1912) 79 N. J. Eq. 599, 82 Atl. 896; Phillips v. Phillips (1913) 81 N. J. Eq. 459, 86 Atl. 949, affirmed in (1914) 83 N. J. Eq. 345, 91 Atl. 1070; Cessna v. Adams (1921) 93 N. J. Eq. 276, 115 Atl. 802.

Billings V.

(1920)

Clinton (1874) 6 S. C. 90.

Tennessee. Haywood v. Ensley (1847) 8 Humph. 460.

Texas. Mead v. Randolph (1852) 8 Tex. 191; Agricultural, M. & B. Asso. v. Brewster (1879) 51 Tex. 257; King v. Gilleland (1883) 60 Tex. 271; Hutzler v. Groff (1898) Tex. Civ. App., 48 S. W. 206; Kelly v. Short (1903) Tex. Civ. App. 75 S. W. 877; Smalley v. Paine (1910) 62 Tex. Civ. App. 52, 130 S. W. 739; Robson v. Moore (1914) - Tex. Civ. App.

Tex. W. 381;

Tex.

166 S. W. 908; Hambleton V. Southwest Texas Baptist Hospital (1915) — Tex. Civ. App. ——, 172 S. W. 574; Blumenthal v. Nussbaum (1917) Tex. Civ. App. 195 S. W. 275; Watts v. McCloud (1918) Civ. App. S. -, 205 Rudasil v. Rudasill (1918) Civ. App. - 206 S. W. 983; Carl v. Settegast (1919) Tex. Civ. App. -, 211 S. W. 506; Goodrich v. Hicks (1898) 19 Tex. Civ. App. 528, 48 S. W. 798. See also Houston Oil Co. v. Votaw (1916) 184 S. W. 647.

Washington. (1910) 57 Wash. Harras v. Harras 258, 110 Pac. 1085. West Virginia.

Tex. Civ. App. Kinney v. McCall 545, 107 Pac. 385; (1910) 60 Wash.

Hamilton v. Mc

Petrie v. Reynolds

Mo.

219 S. W. 934;

Childs v. Wesleyan Cemetery Asso. (1877) 4 Mo. App. 74.

Roddy v. Roddy (1873) 3 Neb. 96; Kobarg v. Greeder (1897) 51 Neb. 365, 70 N. W. 921. Crouse v. Frothingham (1884) 97 N. Y. 105. Pennsylvania. Hollinshead's Appeal (1883) 103 Pa. 158.

Texas. (1890)

Howard v. Zimpelman Tex. -, 14 S. W. 59; Cuney v. Dupree (1858) 21 Tex. 211; Grooms v. Rust (1863) 27 Tex. 231; Moreland v. Barnhart (1875) 44 Tex. 275; Markham v. Carothers (1877) 47 Tex. 21; Rogers v. Tompkins (1905) Tex. Civ. App. —, 87 S. W. 379; McBride v. Briggs (1917) Tex. Civ. App. —, 199 S. W. 341; Henslee v. Henslee (1893) 5 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 24 S. W. 321; Cunio v. Burland (1880) 1 Posey, Unrep. Cas. 469.

Donaghe v. Tams (1885) 81 Va. 132; Woodward V. Sibert (1886) 82 Va. 441.

West Virginia. Gilbert Bros. & Co. v. Lawrence Bros. (1904) 56 W. Va. 281, 49 S. E. 155;

-clear and positive, Cooksey v. Bryan (1894) 2 App. D. C. 557; Turpin v. Miles (1908) 108 Md. 678, 71 Atl. 440; Ruhe v. Ruhe (1910) 113 Md. 595, 77 Atl. 797; Johns v. Carroll (1908) 107 Md. 436, 69 Atl. 36; Brown v. Murray (1922) N. J. Eq. - 118 Atl. 534; Harrison v. McMennomy (1834) 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 251; Parker v. Newitt (1890) 18 Or. 274, 23 Pac. 246;

- full and clear, Buck v. Pike (1833) 11 Me. 9; Kendall v. Mann (1865) 11 Allen (Mass.) 15;

- clear and distinct, Silvey V. Hodgdon (1877) 52 Cal. 363; Pillars v. McConnell (1895) 141 Ind. 670, 40 N. E. 689; Van Wert v. Chidester (1875) 31 Mich. 207; Bernard v. Bougard (1836) Harr. Ch. (Mich.)

130; Kane v. O'Conners (1883) 78 Va. 76; Sinclair v. Sinclair (1884) 79 Va. 40;

-clear and indubitable, Grant v. Bradstreet (1895) 87 Me. 583, 33 Atl. 165; Bernard v. Bougard (1836) Harr. Ch. (Mich.) 130; Mead v. Robertson (1908) 131 Mo. App. 185, 110 S. W. 1095;

-clear and unquestionable, Phelps v. Seely (1872) 22 Grant. (Va.) 573; Donaghe v. Tams (1885) 81 Va. 132; Armstrong v. Bailey (1897) 43 W. Va. 778, 28 S. E. 766; Hamilton v. MeKinney (1902) 52 W. Va. 317, 43 S. E. 82; Hatfield v. Allison (1905) 57 W. Va. 374, 50 S. E. 729;

- clear and unambiguous, Mercer v. Stark (1841) Smedes & M. Ch. (Miss.) 479;

very clear and corroborated, Jamison v. Wells (1922) — Tex. Civ. App., 236 S. W. 806;

- clear, strong, and unquestionable, Re Teter (1909) 173 Fed. 798, affirmed in (1910) 103 C. C. A. 213, 179 Fed. 655; Hudkins v. Grim (1908) 64 W. Va. 225, 61 S. E. 166; Spaulding v. Spaulding (1920) 87 W. Va. 26, 104 S. E. 604;

-full, clear, and explicit, Throckmorton v. Throckmorton (1895) 91 Va. 42, 22 S. E. 162; Faulkner v. Grantham (1904) 55 W. Va. 317, 47 S. E. 78;

-clear, explicit, and satisfactory, Chance v. Graham (1915) 76 Or. 199, 148 Pac. 63; Lau's Estate (1896) 176 Pa. 100, 34 Atl. 969;

South Carolina. See Miller v. Saxton (1906) 75 S. C. 237, 55 S. E. 310.

Texas. Cunio v. Burland (1880) 1 Posey, Unrep. Cas. 469.

West Virginia. Troll v. Carter (1879) 15 W. Va. 582; Bright v. Knight (1891) 35 W. Va. 40, 13 S. E. 63; Gilbert Bros. v. Lawrence Bros. (1904) 56 W. Va. 281, 49 S. E. 155;

- clear, positive, and satisfactory, Hunter v. Feild (1914) 114 Ark. 128, 169 S. W. 813; Greer v. Greer (1922) Ark. -, 244 S. W. 471; Jennings v. Shacklett (1878) 30 Gratt (Va.) 765;

- clear, definite, and positive, Forrester v. Scoville (1873) 51 Mo. 268; Philpot v. Penn (1886) 91 Mo. 38, 3 S. W. 386; Ferguson v. Robinson (1914) 258 Mo. 113, 167 S. W. 447; Aeby v. Aeby (1916) Mo. 192 S. W. 97; Woerheide V. Kelley (1922) Mo. 243 S. W. 158; Mead V. Robertson (1908) 131 Mo. App. 185, 110 S. W. 1095; clear, direct, and explicit, Witts v. Horney (1883) 59 Md. 584; Brennan v. Durkin (1892) 76 Md. 451, 25 Atl. 481;

-clear, precise, and indubitable, Robinson v. Powell (1904) 210 Pa. 232, 59 Atl. 1078; Casciola v. Donatelli (1907) 218 Pa. 624, 67 Atl. 901; Hollis v. Hollis (1916) 254 Pa. 90, 98 Atl. 789; Isenberg v. Huntingdon Millwork & Lumber Co. (1916) 62

clear, satisfactory, and doubted, Reynolds v. Caldwell (1885) 80 Ala. 232;

-clear, positive, and satisfactory, Hunter v. Feild (1914) 114 Ark. 128, 169 S. E. 813;

-clear, certain, satisfactory, and trustworthy, Leroy v. Norton (1911) 49 Colo. 490, 113 Pac. 529;

- clear

and uncontrovertible, Moore v. Hunter (1844) 6 Ill. 317;

-clear, decisive, and satisfactory, Sunderland v. Sunderland (1865) 19 Iowa, 325;

clear, distinct, and satisfactory, Willis v. Robertson (1903) 121 Iowa, 380, 96 N. W. 900; Cutler v. Tuttle (1868) 19 N. J. Eq. 549;

-clear and strong, Ratigan v. Ratigan (1917) 181 Iowa, 860, 162 N. W. 580, 165 N. W. 85;

-clear, definite, and probative, Bradley v. Bradley (1893) 119 Mo. 58, 24 S. W. 757;

-clear, strong, and satisfactory, Mitchell v. O'Neale (1869) 4 Nev. 504;

- clear, specific, and satisfactory, Carter v. Carter (1905) 14 N. D. 66, 103 N. W. 425;

-clear and unmistakable, Barger v. Barger (1897) 30 Or. 268, 47 Pac. 702;

- clear and specific, Brickell v. Earley (1886) 115 Pa. 473, 8 Atl. 623;

clear, precise, and explicit, Donithen v. Independent Order of Foresters (1903) 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 442, reversed on other grounds in (1904) 209 Pa. 170, 58 Atl. 142;

clear, distinct, and positive, Emerick v. Emerick (1858) 3 Phila. (Pa.) 94;

- exact, clear, and positive, Cunio v. Burland (1880) 1 Posey, Unrep. Cas. (Tex.) 469;

-clear, full, and unquestionable, Pickens v. Wood (1905) 57 W. Va. 480, 50 S. E. 818. Overwhelming.

There are several Iowa cases to the effect that parol evidence to es

1