PAROL EVIDENCE, How FAR ADMISSIBLE. The rule in regard to the admissibility of parol evidence to vary, control, or to render intelligible the words of a Swill, is not essen tially different from that which obtains in regard to contracts. It may be received to show the state of the testator, the nature and condition of his property, his relation to the contestants, and all the surrounding cir cumstances. But this is done to place the court in the condition of the testator, in or der as far as practicable to enable them the more fully to understand the sense in which he probably used the language found in his will ; 1 Nev. & M. 524 ; Brown v. Thorndike, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 400 ; 1 Jarm. Wills 349 ; Kin sey v. Rhem, 24 N. C. 192. To ascertain the intention of testator, circumstances existing at the date of the execution of a will, but not those subsequent thereto, are admissible in evidence ; Morris v. Sickly, 133 N. Y. 456, 31 N. E. 332; Gilmor's Estate, 154 Pa. 523, 26 Atl. 614, 35 Am. St. Rep. 855 ; White v. Hol land, 92 Ga. 216, 18 S. E. 17, 44 Am. St. Rep. 87.
Letters and oral declarations of the tes tator are not admissible to show the inten tion of the testator ; 2 Vern. 625 ; Mann v. Mann, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 1, 7 Am. Dec. 469 ; Lewis v. Lewis, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 455. But see Ryerss v. Wheeler, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 148. Parol evidence is not admissible to supply any word or defect in the will ; Negro Cesar v. Chew, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 127 ; Comstock v. Hadlyme, 8 Conn. _254, 20 Am. Dec. 100; Hyatt v. Pugsley, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 285. Parol declarations of the testator about the time of making the will are often admitted to show the state of mind, capacity, and un derstanding of the testator ; but they are not to be used to show his intention ; that must be learned from the language used ; Comstock v Hadlyme, 8 Conn. 254, 20 Am. Dec. 100 ; Foster v. Smith, 156 Mass. 379, 31 N. E. 291. Parol evidence is inadmissible to prove that a gift to a nephew was really in tended for the wife's nephew of the same name ; Root's Estate, 187 Pa. 118, 40 Atl. 818 ; but see 12 IIarv. L. Rev. 210. See, gen erally, Tud. Lead. Cas. R. P. 918; Wigram,
Wills.
Parol evidence has also been admitted in the case of mistake in the description of the subject matter of the devise, as where "the tract of land on which I now live" was held to prevail over courses and distances ; Thom son v. Thomson, 115 Mo. 56, 21 S. W. 1085, 1128 ; Board of Trustees of M. E. Church v. May, 201 Mo. 360, 99 S. W. 1093 (where the numbers of the lots were wrongly given); Douglas v. Bolinger, 228 Ill. 23, 81 N. E. 787, 119 Am. St. Rep. 409 (where the north half of a section was stricken out and the west half held to pass, the latter being owned by the testator).
The doctrine that a non-testamentary docu ment may be admitted to probate with a will (1) if referred to in the will as an existing document, (2) if written before the will was made, and (3) if actually in existence at the time of the execution of the will, is said to be firmly established in England; 13 L. R. Ir. 13 ; L. R. 1 P. & D. 198 ; also as to the first point; 34 L. J. P. 105 ; and as to the third ; 3 App. 404 ; L. R. 1 P. 19. It may be sufficiently identified by reference in the will; 3 Sw. & Tr. 192. American courts gen erally seem to adopt the doctrine ; Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 436, 21 L. Ed. 779 ; Skinner v. Bible Soc., 92 Wis. 209, 65 N. W. 1037; Fickle v. Snepp, 97 Ind. 289, 49 Am. Rep. 449; Beall v. Cunningham, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 390, 39 Am. Dec. 469 ; Newton v. Sea man's Friend Soc., 130 Mass. 91, 39 Am. Rep. 433 ; Pollock v. Glassell, 2 Grat. (Va.) 439 ; Gerrish v. Gerrish, 8 Or. 351, 34 Am. Rep. 585 ; In re Bresler's Estate, 155 Mich. 567, 119 N. W. 1104. See note in 19 Harv. L. Rev. 1528.
The same doctrine is recognized in Magnus v. Magnus, 80 N. J. Eq. 346, 84 Atl. 705 ; but in that case a provision giving property to be disposed of according to "my instructions to her" failed because not identifying the in structions; and a bequest to creditors as shown by a list to be found with the will was void as an attempt to bequeath property to Persons only ascertainable by reference to a non testamentary paper ; Hartwell v. Mar tin, 71 N. J. Eq. 157, 63 Atl. 754.