I concur. Further consideration of this case has convinced me that under the rule discussed and applied in Harrison v.McCormick, 89 Cal. 327, [23 Am. St. Rep. 469, 26 P. 830], parol evidence was not admissible for the purpose of showing that the sale was by sample. It appears very clear that the present judgment can be affirmed only upon the theory that the sale was by sample, and plaintiffs being precluded from showing that fact, must necessarily fail upon this appeal.