Service of defendant's statement of the case on appeal to the Supreme Court was accepted by counsel for the State, and as counsel for the State filed no objections or exceptions thereto, or any constitutes the case on appeal to the Supreme Court. G.S. 1-282; Coral Gables, Inc. v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426, 181 S.E. 263. In reference to the above motion, these facts appear from the case on appeal, and from a stipulation entered into between counsel for the State and the defendant:
If the plaintiff brings an action to foreclose the deed of trusts or if Barney Lee Groover and wife bring an action to cancel the note and deed of trust, then the question as to whether the alleged parol agreement, if there was one, runs counter to the terms of the written instruments, and all other attendant questions, can be presented for decision. See Coral Gables, Inc. v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426, 181 S.E. 263; Stanback v. Haywood, 209 N.C. 798, 184 S.E. 831. Accepting the allegations of the second further answer and defense as true, it alleges no defense to plaintiff's cause of action in the instant case.
Moreover, counsel for defendant in the oral argument before this Court admitted that the questions now urged with respect to the seal were not raised in the trial below. "An appeal ex necessitate follows the theory of the trial" — Stacy, C.J., in Coral Gables, Inc., v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426, 181 S.E. 263. See also Hargett v. Lee, 206 N.C. 536, 174 S.E. 498, and Potts v. Insurance Co., 206 N.C. 257, 174 S.E. 123.
An appeal ex necessitate follows the theory of the trial. Coral Gables v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426; Weil v. Herring, 207 N.C. 6, 175 S.E. 836; Hargett v. Lee, 206 N.C. 536, 174 S.E. 498; Holland v. Dulin, 206 N.C. 211, 173 S.E. 310. The case then comes to a single question: Shall the respondent be disbarred by the statutory method?
It is well-nigh axiomatic that no verbal agreement between the parties to a written contract, made before or at the time of the execution of such contract, is admissible to vary its terms or to contradict its provisions. Dawson v. Wright, 208 N.C. 418, 181 S.E. 264; Coral Gables v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426, 181 S.E. 263; Carlton v. Oil Co., 206 N.C. 117, 172 S.E. 883; Overall Co. v. Hollister, 186 N.C. 208, 119 S.E. 1; Ray v. Blackwell, 94 N.C. 10. As against the recollection of the parties, whose memories may fail them, the written word abides. Walker v. Venters, 148 N.C. 388, 62 S.E. 510. The rule undoubtedly makes for the sanctity and security of contracts.
Reversed. Cited: Mills v. Walker, 179 N.C. 484; Thomas v. Carteret, 182 N.C. 379; Slayton v. Commissioners, 186 N.C. 695; Hooper v. Trust Co., 190 N.C. 427; Roebuck v. Carson, 196 N.C. 674; Warren v. Bottling Co., 204 N.C. 125; Trust Co. v. Wilder, 206 N.C. 125; Coral Gables, Inc. v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426; Coleman v. Whisnant, 226 N.C. 259.
New trial. Cited: Coal Co. v. Fain, 171 N.C. 647 (1b); Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co., 176 N.C. 503 (1p); S. v. Fulcher, 176 N.C. 730 (1b); In re Hinton, 180 N.C. 215 (1b); Parks v. Trust Co., 195 N.C. 455 (1f); S. v. Lee, 196 N.C. 716 (1f); Metts v. Ins. Co., 198 N.C. 200 (1f); Calhoun v. Highway Com., 208 N.C. 426 (1f).
Affirmed. Cited: Crotts v. Winston-Salem, 170 N.C. 27 (g); Bennett v. R. R., 170 N.C. 392 (1); Lumber Co. v. Drainage Comrs., 174 N.C. 650 (g); Keener v. Asheville, 177 N.C. 5 (b); Powell v. R.R., 178 N.C. 247 (1); Milling Co. v. Highway Com., 190 N.C. 699 (1); Calhoun v. Highway Com., 208 N.C. 426 (g). (372)