The court properly ruled that it was not competent to prove by paroi evidence such an agreement as to the note as was proposed, and that the defence relied upon could not avail the defendant. Of the numerous authorities that might be cited to sustain such ruling, those of St. Louis Ins. Co. v. Homer, 9 Met. 39, Adams v. Wilson, 12 Met. 138, and Tower v. Richardson, 6 Allen, 351, may be referred to as especially in point. Exceptions overruled.