the receipt of payment of the consideration, will not be allowed, by disproving the fact, to establish a resulting trust in himself.’ “Subject to the two restrictions stated, it has always been held that the consideration in a deed may always be inquired into, and any other or any additional consideration may be shown, if not inconsistent with that expressed in the deed.” 216 Ala. 97, 101, 112 So. 454, 457 (1927)(opinion on rehearing). See also Milu, Inc. v. Duke, 204 So.2d 31 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967) (concluding that evidence is admissible to show what consideration is paid although a deed has been accepted because contractual provisions as to considerations to be paid by the purchaser are ordinarily not merged in the deed); Purbaugh v. Jurgensmeier, 240 Neb. 679, 483 N.W.2d 757 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the mere execution and delivery of a
holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach holding that because the purchase price typically is not included in the deed this term of the contract of sale is not merged with the deed holding that sellers agreement to furnish title policy was a separate agreement not superseded by the deed and properly not included in the deed