The opinion
Allen, J.
~We have examined the full and complete brief of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, discussing the admissibility of parol evidence when a writing is in existence relating to the subject-matter, but we find the precise question presented by this record has been heretofore decided in favor of the defendants, and we rest our judgment on that decision.
*442 In Kernodle v. Williams, 153 N. C., 475 , tbe plaintiff was tbe same as in tbis case, and tbe defendants were a daughter and ber husband, while in tbe present action they are a son and bis wife:
Tbe action was on a bond promising to pay money, and tbe defense that after the payment of certain amounts, which were paid, that tbe remainder of tbe bond was to be accounted for in a settlement of tbe father’s estate as an advancement, and was not to paid unless needed for tbe payment of debts.
It was held that parol evidence was properly admitted to establish the defense, one of tbe head-notes being as follows: “Tbe father sued bis daughter and son-in-law to recover upon a bond given him by them in a certain sum due one day after date: Held, it was competent to show in defense by parol evidence that by a contemporaneous oral.agreement the defendants were to pay and did pay certain amounts upon tbe bond, and that tbe balance was only to be accounted for in settlement with tbe father’s estate as an advancement, and that no actual joayment thereof was to be made unless needed to pay debts of tbe estate.”
Tbe order of argument before tbe jury is committed to tbe discretion ' of tbe trial judge, except when tbe defendant introduces no evidence, and bis action is not reviewable. Rule 6, 164 N. C., 563 .
No error.