¶1 The agreement in writing under seal, executed by the plaintiffs and the testator of the defendant, put in evidence on the trial by the plaintiffs, plainly upon its face, by its terms, scope, and meaning, purports to set forth fully the grounds and considerations that prompted its execution. It is broad and comprehensive as to the matters embraced by it, and there is nothing in its terms or purpose that implies omission in any respect, and particularly the consideration is mentioned in like comprehensive terms.
¶2 When the parties to a contract in writing thus refer in it to matters constituent of it, it must be taken that the whole of the material parts of such matters are mentioned, nothing to the contrary appearing; and parol evidence will not *235 be received to contradict, add to, take from, or modify what the parties have thus put in writing. The reason for this is, that the parties having seriously put their contract in writing, have agreed to make the writing evidence of the same, and they are presumed to have set down how and to what extent they are willing to be bound and concluded as to the material matters and things mentioned therein, unless they provide otherwise in terms or by reasonable implication.
¶3 If by mutual mistake of the parties, accident, or the fraud of a party, the contract omitted something, or a part pertinent, or embraced something that ought to have been ex-excluded, then a Court of Equity might give relief. Lawrence v. Hester, 93 N. C., 79; Ray v. Blackwell, 94 N. C., 10; Nicholson v. Reves, Ibid.., 559.
¶4 The Court therefore properly excluded the parol evidence, the obvious purpose of which was to prove a consideration of the agreement omitted from and not mentioned or referred to in it. There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.
¶5 No error. Affirmed.