(after stating the case). We concur in the ruling of the Court, that neither of the obstructions, relied on as in the way of prosecuting the present action is a bar thereto. It is distinctly adjudged in the first suit that, upon an account stated, in which all the moneyed transactions between the contesting parties are set out in detail, there remains a resultant balance due the plaintiff of $215.40, which he recovers of the defendant, E. G. Copeland, and upon its payment the mortgages wherein it is secured will be discharged and must be cancelled. But this has not been done, *329and hence, a right to get possession still residing in the plaintiff, may be enforced, and damages recovered commensurate with the secured debt, but not beyond its amount.
The former adjudication not only determines the sum due, but that it is secured in the mortgages, and these are not open longer to controversy. But it does not direct a sale of the mortgaged property, leaving the discharge of the mortgage dependent upon the action of the defendants, and they have taken no steps in the direction of the exoneration of ■the property. It was left, therefore, to the plaintiff to seek the remedy he has adopted, and, the result being a conversion of the property into its money value, the reception of so much as will pay the debt and costs thus becoming a satisfaction of the demand. But the recovery, in this case, falls short of the required amount, and will all belong to the plaintiff.
The exceptions, not disposed of in what has been already said, have not been urged in the argument, and are untenable, and we notice only that relating to the refusal to allow the referee in the first cause to explain his account orally. Evidence of this sort falls under the general ruling, which ■excludes outside oral-testimony of what a party means in a written statement submitted and acted .on by others.
It is obligatory, in the sense in which it was understood .and acted upon by the parties affected by it, ascertained by its terms and their fitting to surrounding facts, and not from the undisclosed intention of the person preparing the paper But a sufficient answ7er is found in the fact, that what was proposed to be shown sufficiently appears in the report itself,' without such external-aid, and. the ascertained'balance is determined, to’be secured under the chattel mortgages, one or more of them, it matters not which, and this has become res adjudicata.
We find no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.
No error. Affirmed.