Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/819

 SINGEE MANUF'G CO. V. HESTBB. S07 �fore, to show by paroi that which is in contradiction of the bond, viz. : that it was to secure, not ail debts contracted by Hester of any and every kind, past or future, as it plainly says, but only to secure such as might grow out of the con- tract of agency. To admit such proof would be to vary by paroi the tenus of a written instrument. Bmh v. Bank, 101 U. S. 93; Sewing Machine Co.v. Webster, 47 lowa, 357; Ins. Co. V. Sedgwick, 110 Mass. 163 ; Frank v. Edwards, 8 Exoh. 214. �2. Even if we read the two instruments together as one con- tract, the terms of the bonds are not varied or modified. The two instruments can stand together, and the provisions of each can have full effect. Because in the contract Hester was appointed agent for plaintiflf, with certain powers, duties, rights, and liabilities, it does not follow that it was not the purpose to make the bond sufficiently comprehensive in its terms to cover that as well as other transactions. The terms of the bond are too plain to be misunderstood. They are not ambiguous, and, in the absence of an allegation of fraud, accident, or mistake, we must give them effect according to their usual and ordinary acceptation. It follows, from these considerations, that the demurrer to the original answer was properly sustained. �3. It only remains to consider the question whether the instruction given by the court to the jury to find for plaintitf was proper. It is insisted by defendant's counsel that the question whether the plaintiff agreed to rescind the bond in consideration of the execution of the second contract by the agent, Hester, should have been submitted to the jury. �There was testimony tending to show that an agent of plaintiff was present at the time of the execution of the sec- ond agreement between the company and Hester, and that he expressed the opinion that the effect of it would be to re- lease the sureties of the bond. There was no testimony tending to show that the agent agreed or stipulated that the sureties should be released, nor was there any testimony tending to show that he had any authority from the company to make such an agreement. The expression by the plain- ��� �