Cited by

Jordan v. White, 20 Minn. 77 (91); Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 ; Sayre v. Burdick, 47 Minn. 367 , .

The following cases are in point: Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 ; Gammon v. Ganfield, 42 Minn. 368 , ; Germania Bank of Minneapolis v. Osborne, 81 Minn. 272 , .

Jordan v. White, 20 Minn. 77 (91); Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 ; Gammon v. Ganfield, 42 Minn. 368 , ; Germania Bank of Minneapolis v. Osborne, 81 Minn. 272 , ; Rines v. Ferrell, 107 Minn. 251 , ; French v. Yale, 124 Minn. 63 , ; W. W. Kimball Co. v. Massey, 126 Minn. 461 , .

The contention of defendant is that the facts bring the case within the well defined exception to the rule as applied in Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 , where it was held that parol evidence is admissible in such cases where it tends to establish a distinct and independent agreement not intended by the parties to be embraced in the written contract.

It is not a case where the agreement was oral, and the writings executed in performance of part of the agreement, leaving another and separate part of it still wholly in parol, as in Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 .

Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 .

The cases of Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 , and Germania Bank v. Osborne, 81 Minn. 272 , , are cited in support of this claim.

The case is similar to that of Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 , where the plaintiff sold certain premises to defendant and executed a bill of sale.

Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 ; Jordan v. White, 20 Minn. 91 , (Gil: 77;) Green v. Batson, 71 Wis.

And it comes within the rule laid down in Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 , that, “to give the writing conclusive effect, the agreement itself must be reduced to writing.

It is not a-case where the agreement was oral, and the writings executed in performance of part of the agreement, leaving another and separate part of it still wholly in parol, as in Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 .

We are referred to Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 , as overruling this.

Healey v. Young, 21 Minn. 389 .