164 McKim v. THOMPSON.

While we are in the way of removing or rejecting matters entirely
extraneous from the question now under consideration, it may be
well to observe, that although the letter of the 10th of November,
from John Bell to Heyland, may be used between the Bells and
Thompson, and shews the inducement for entering into the two
deeds between Heyland and Thompson; yet, as it cannot be allowed
to * control or contradict those deeds, it must, upon the present
occasion, be entirely laid aside.

Having removed from about this motion, all matters which do
not properly belong to it, let us now see how the case stands in its
simple and reduced form. It is this:—The trustees for all the
creditors of Marcus Heyland, appointed under the insolvent laws
of this State, together with sundry of his specified creditors, now
move the court to order Hugh Thompson, a defendant, to bring into
court the sum of eight thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine
pounds, five shillings and four pence, sterling money of England,
which he had received at various times between the 5th of March,
1811, and the 13th of September following, as specified in the
exhibit E, referred to in their bill. Which sum of money, they
charge, was received under and by virtue of the last mentioned of
the two deeds entered into between Heyland and Thompson, the
one dated on the 20th of November, 1810, and the other bearing
date on the 8th of January, 1811. To this Thompson answers
and admits, that the persons named in the bill are the creditors of
Heyland, as stated, and that the two deeds were made and entered
into as stated; but he denies, that the second was intended to
cancel or supersede the first And, after making sundry allegations
about the true intent, and the proper interpretation of those contracts,
and his right to hold and apply the money received under them, to
Ms own use, he theft makes a direct answer to the bill as to the
money which it alleges to have been received by him as stated in
the exhibit E, in these words: "Defendant did receive from
Marcus Heyland, the sums of money mentioned in complainant's
bill" And further, "that at the time the money was paid into his
hands by Heyland, defendant did not expect it would be appropria-
ted to the payment of Heytand's creditors in England.'

The true construction of written contracts is a matter which
belongs exclusively to the Chancellor: no parol proof can be
admitted to explain them, unless in cases of latent ambiguity. No
such ambiguity exists in the present case- Therefore, all the facts

rative to Thompson's right and title to the money which, he