Therefore, testimony of the parties to the notes should not be considered as altering the express written obligation of one of the parties to the notes, in the absence of equitable reasons, such as fraud. See Dove v. Cowlitz Valley Bank, 191 Wn. 429, 71 P.2d 555 (1937); In re Hemrich, 187 Wn. 21, 59 P.2d 748 (1936); Farmers State Bank of Newport v. Lamon, 132 Wn. 369, 231 P. 952, 42 A.L.R. 1072 (1925). Furthermore, we believe the facts stated in the affidavits of the parties (which is evidence not appearing within the four corners of the notes) support respondent's position that appellant is an absolute guarantor.

Meng v. Security State Bank, supra; First Nat'l Bank v. Estus, 185 Wn. 174, 52 P.2d 1243 (1936). It is necessary to distinguish, however, between a note discharged by payment (RCW 62.01.119, now RCW 62A.3-603; 11 Am.Jur.2d Bills and Notes § 963 (1963)) and a renewal note as such. A renewal note is a new note given for the old with no discharge of the old note as, for example, by payment, unless so intended. Dove v. Cowlitz Valley Bank, 191 Wn. 429, 71 P.2d 555 (1937); Boston Nat'l Bank v. Jose, 10 Wn. 185, 38 P. 1026 (1894). The proceeds of the August 1967 note were separate property because they were the proceeds of a separate obligation.