The  Superior  Court  excluded  the  evidence,  and  this
Court  ''modified  and  affirmed  the  judgment."

Taylor  v.  Hunt  118  N.  C,  168— This  is  like  Moffitt  v.
Maness,  supra,  in  which  the  Court  says:  ''While  it  is
true  that  where  a  contract  is  not  required  to  be  in  writ-
ing, if  the  entir*"  contract  is  not  reduced  to  writing,  the
other  part  may  be  proved  by  parol.  Nissen  v.  Mining
Co.,  104  N.  C,  309."


736  IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT.  [128


JONBB    V,    RhBA.
Meekins  v.  Newberry,  101  N.  C,  17 — This  was  an  ac-
tion for  damages  resulting  from  breach  of  contract.
Plaintiff  put  in  evidence  a  receipt,  reciting  various  things
agreed  to.  Defendant  offered  to  show  some  unwritten
part.  This  Court  held  the  evidence  incompetent  on  the
ground  that  the  paper  writing  "purports  by  its  terms
and  tbe  nature  of  the  things  agreed  to  be  done  to  em-
brace the  whole  agreement  of  the  parties.  It  implies
completeness. "

Harris  v.  Murphy,  lli>  N.  C,  34 — This  was  an  action
for  work  and  labor  done,  and  the  defendant  resisted
parol  evidence  and  put  in  a  receipt  for  part  payment,
which  receipt  recited  the  contract.  Plaintiff  replied  that
some  time  after  the  written  contract  these  paities  ver-
bally agreed  to  modify  the  said  agreement  and  make
some  changes  in  the  work,  and  agreed  on  the  price  of
certain  work,  resulting  from  the  change,  and  offered
evideace  of  the  modified  and  subsequent  agreement.
This  Court  held  the  evidence  competent.
These  cases  reUed  on  by  tbe  plaintiff  do  not  conflict
with  the  principle  announced  in  Daaghtry  v.  Boothe^
supra,  but  recognize  and  ax^e  consistent  with  it.
