¶1 As stated above, the only question presented for decision is the competency of Chadwick’s proffered testimony that in executing the notes or bonds in suit, he did not adopt, or intend to adopt, as his seal, the printed word “Seal” appearing in brackets at the end of the line opposite his signature. Williams v. Turner, 208 N. C., 202, 179 S. E., 806; Allsbrook v. Walston, 212 N. C., 225, 193 S. E., 151; Currin v. Currin, 219 N. C., 815, 15 S. E. (2d), 279; Baird v. Reynolds, 99 N. C., 469, 6 S. E., 377; Yarborough v. Monday, 14 N. C., 420. See, also, Supply Co. v. Windley, 176 N. C., 18, 96 S. E., 664.
¶2 Initially, it should be observed the defendant admitted, in answering the 3rd paragraph of the complaint — and this admission was offered in evidence — that he executed the several notes or bonds in suit, “all identical in language,” and each bearing the word “Seal” opposite his signature. The allegation and admission establish the word “Seal” as a part of each instrument. They are therefore immune from amendment, modification, or contradiction by parol. Ins. Co. v. Wells, ante, 574; *600 Coleman v. Whisnant, ante, 258; Ins. Co. v. Morehead, 209 N. C., 174, 183 S. E., 606; Bank v. Dardine, 207 N. C., 509, 177 S. E., 635; Stansbury’s N. C. Evidence, sec. 253.
¶3 When it is admitted, as it is here, that tbe defendant signed or executed several instruments under seal, be is bound by bis admission. Davis v. Crump, 219 N. C., 625, 14 S. E. (2d), 666; Peanut Co. v. Lucas, 206 N. C., 922, 175 S. E., 176; State ex rel. Lee v. Martin, 191 N. C., 401, 132 S. E., 14; Weston v. Typewriter Co., 183 N. C., 1, 110 S. E., 581; Jones v. R. R., 176 N. C., 260, 97 S. E., 48; Stansbury’s N. C. Evidence, sec. 177. It is true, tbe notes or bonds in suit contain no in testimoniwrn clause, nevertheless they are alleged to be notes or bonds under seal, and tbis is admitted. 11 C. J. S., 404. Hence, in tbe instant case, tbe proffered testimony of tbe defendant Chadwick t'bat be did not adopt, or intend to adopt, as bis seal, tbe word “Seal” appearing in brackets at tbe end of tbe line opposite bis signature, was properly excluded under tbe rule wbicb prohibits tbe introduction of parol testimony to vary, modify, or contradict tbe terms of a written instrument. Etheridge v. Palin, 72 N. C., 213. Tbe rule is, that “parol evidence will not be beard to contradict, add to, take from or in any way vary tbe terms of a contract put in. writing . . . for tbe reason that tbe parties, when they reduce their contract to writing, are presumed to have inserted in it all tbe provisions by wbicb they intended to be bound.” Ray v. Blackwell, 94 N. C., 10. As against tbe recollection of tbe parties, whose memories may fail them, tbe written word abides. Walker v. Venters, 148 N. C., 388, 62 S. E., 510.
¶4 Appellees further suggest Chadwick’s proffered testimony was properly excluded under tbe “dead man’s” statute, G. S., 8-51, as it concerns a personal transaction or communication between tbe witness and J. K. Warren, deceased. However tbis may be, we think tbe proffered testimony was correctly excluded on other grounds.
¶5 It is conceded that if tbe notes or bonds in suit be under seal, tbe ten-year statute of limitations applies, and tbe action is not barred; while if they be not under seal, tbe three-year statute of limitations applies, and tbe action is barred. Tbe notes or bonds were executed 3 December, 1929, and matured one each year for five successive years after date of making. Tbe present action was instituted 30 August, 1940.
¶6 No error has been made to appear; consequently tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.
¶7 No error.