The mortgagor may not recover from his vendee. It will be noted that there is no allegation in the bill of complaint that the parties, in the execution of the deed, had any other agreement than that expressed in the written contract, therefore, on this motion, a factual question as to whether there was an oral agreement entered into after the execution of the agreement to convey and before the execution of the deed, changing the manner in which the purchase price was to be paid does not arise as it did in Latt v. Schwehm, 162 A. 184, 10 N.J. Misc. 1050, affirmed 111 N.J.L. 493, 168 A. 660. Motion to strike granted, with costs.

The defendants appeal therefrom. The first ground of reversal urged by the defendants is that the contract as modified was merged with the deed and that an action for breach of the contract did not lie, citing Long v. Hartwell, 34 N.J.L. 116 ( Sup. Ct. 1870); Smith v. Colonial Woodworking Co., 110 N.J. Eq. 418 ( E. A. 1932); Latt v. Schwehm, 10 N.J. Misc. 1050 ( Sup. Ct. 1932), affirmed 111 N.J.L. 493 ( E. A. 1933); Dieckman v. Walser, 114 N.J. Eq. 382 ( E. A. 1933). In the opinion in the latter case, we find this language: