Appeal from the District Court~of' the Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento.

This was an action to require the defendant to convey the legal title to a lot in the city of Sacramento to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was organized as a corporation January 31st, 1856, under Chapter VIII of the Act of April 29th, 1850, entitled “An Act concerning corporations.” About one year thereafter the premises in controversy were conveyed by one Hunter to Robinson, Perry and Folger, who were the trustees of the plaintiff. In November, 1857, the , plaintiff’s trustees, as such, conveyed the property to the defendant’s predecessor, the Mayor and the Common Council of the city of Sacramento, by a deed in which the habendum is as follows: “To have and to hold all and singular the above mentioned and described premises, together with appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, and to their successors in office as trustees of said Young America Engine No. 6, and for the use and benefit of said company forever.” At the trial, the plaintiff having introduced the deeds above mentioned, the defendant offered to prove that the original purchase money ($1,000) was subscribed by citizens other than members of the plaintiff, for the purpose of buying a lot on which to erect a house for Engine Company No. 6, the City Council agreeing to build the house; that after the lot had been purchased with this understanding, the city built an engine-house thereon at a cost of $4,000; that the house was built by the city, and occupied by the plaintiff with the understanding and agreement that it belonged to the city for the use of its fire department, and not for the separate use of the plaintiff; that no member of plaintiff had paid any part of the purchase money; that a change having been made in the organization of the fire department of the city, the plaintiff was about to disincorporate and divide its property among its members and so divert the same from the uses of the fire-department. The plaintiff objected to the evidence and the Court excluded it on the ground that, no mistake or fraud about the execution of the deeds having been alleged, the defendant could not be allowed by parol evidence to vary the terms of the trust .created. The defendant excepted to the ruling; and, judgment having been rendered for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.