Where there is no ambiguity in the instrument parol evidence is inadmissible to add to, modify, vary or change the will. Armstrong v. Armistead, 32 Ga. 597; Hill v. Hill, 161 Ga. 356, 359 ( 130 S.E. 575); Ransone v. Arnold, 183 Ga. 184, 186 ( 187 S.E. 857). In the instant case there is no ambiguity. The devise in question is, "To the trustees of St. Joseph Orphanage at Washington, Georgia, and their successors in office, . . . to be used for the purposes and benefits of said orphanage."
The evidence does not disclose actionable negligence by the railroad and judgment of nonsuit was properly entered. Rose v. R. R., 210 N.C. 834, 187 S.E. 857; Blackwell v. Hawkins, 207 N.C. 874, 178 S.E. 554; Anno: 84 A.L.R.2d 813, 824. The reason for the failure of the deceased to see the engine blocking the crossing is left to conjecture.
2. In Ransone v. Arnold, 183 Ga. 184 ( 187 S.E. 857), it was held: "A memorandum in a will, of advancement to a legatee, is conclusive of the fact, and is not subject to change by parol evidence." This ruling was based on Code ยง 113-1014.
Co., 341 Mo. 136, 106 S.W.2d 462; Solomon v. Duncan, 194 Mo. App. 523, 185 S.W. 1141; Lauson v. Town of Fond du Lac, 123 N.W. 629; Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 684, 236 S.W. 50; Patton v. Jewel Tea Co., 15 S.W.2d 360; Sheffer v. Schmidt, 324 Mo. 1054, 26 S.W.2d 592; St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 114 So. 215; Dunlap v. Pacific Elect. Ry. Co., 55 P.2d 894; Philadelphia R. Ry. Co. v. Dillon, 114 A. 62; Rowe v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 17 P.2d 352; Coleman v. C., B. Q. Ry. Co., 5 N.E.2d 105; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Huss, 180 N.E. 922; Killion v. Chicago, M., St. P. P. Ry. Co., 25 N.E.2d 651; Dolan v. Bremner, 263 N.W. 800; Sheets v. Baldwin, 73 P.2d 38; Louisville N. Railroad Co. v. Mischel's Admx., 114 S.W.2d 119; Bell Cab Co. v. New York, N.H. H. Ry. Co., 199 N.E. 729; Simpson v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 268 N.W. 769; Summerford v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co., 196 So. 264; Gage v. Boston M. Ry., 90 A. 855; Morris v. Atlantic City Ry. Co., 126 A. 295; Pascal v. Pascal, 4 N.Y. Supp.2d 782; Rose v. Atlantic Coastline Ry. Co., 187 S.E. 857; Bowers v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 259 N.W. 99; Capelle v. Baltimore O. Ry. Co., 24 N.E.2d 824; Highton v. Pa. Ry. Co., 1 A.2d 568; Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Hoy, 24 S.W.2d 20; Yardley v. Rutland Ry. Co., 153 A. 195; Reines v. Chicago, M., St. P. P. Ry. Co., 80 P.2d 408; Fannin v. Minneapolis, St. P. S.S.M. Ry. Co., 200 N.W. 651; Yano v. Stott Briquet Co., 199 N.W. 48; Frame v. Canadian Natl. Rys., 1 Western Weekly Reports, 62. (2) The court erred in permitting the ten thousand dollar verdict to stand since it was grossly excessive, unwarranted and unreasonable. Gaston v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 223 Mo. App. 770, 20 S.W.2d 559.