Sakellaris v. . Wyche

*174 Clarkson, J. At tbe close of all tbe evidence tbe defendant made motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. O. S., 567. Tbe court below sustained tbis motion and tbe plaintiffs excepted, assigned error and appealed to tbe Supreme Court. We can see no error in tbe ruling of tbe court below. We bave read tbe record and able briefs of tbe litigants carefully. We think tbe well settled principle set forth in tbe case of Ray v. Blackwell, 94 N. C., 10 (12), is determinative of tbis controversy: “It is a rule too- firmly established in tbe law of evidence to need a reference to authority in its support, that parol evidence will not be beard to contradict, add to, take from or in any way vary tbe terms of a contract put in writing, and all contemporary declarations and understandings are incompetent for such purpose, for tbe reason that the parties, when they reduce their contract to writing, are presumed to bave inserted in it all tbe provisions by which they intend to be bound. 1 Greenleaf Ev., sec. 76; Etheridge v. Palin, 72 N. C., 213.” If there was a covenant or agreement, as contended by plaintiffs, at tbe time tbe lease was signed, it should bave been included in tbe mitten lease. In tbe Ray case, supra, at p. 13, it is said: “We do not intend to say, that if tbe excluded portion of tbe full parol agreement for renting not contained in tbe writing, has been left out through fraud or mutual mistake or accident, there is not an equitable power residing in tbe court fox its reformation, so that it shall effectuate tbe common understanding, when tbe pleadings are framed in such a way as to admit the defense.” It may be noted that tbe record shows that tbe lease was made and executed by Gust Sakellaris and Ethel O. Wycbe. Tbe action is brought by Gust Sakellaris and A. Pappas, copartners doing business as tbe Baltimore Billiard Parlor. Tbe judgment below is Affirmed.