Serg. & R. 293; Flagler v. Pleiss (1832) 3 Rawle, 345; Oliver v. Oliver (1833) 4 Rawle, 141, 26 Am. Dec. 123; McCulloch v. McKee (1851) 16 Pa. 289; Bartle v. Vosbury (1859) 3 Grant, Cas. 277; Fisher v. Deibert (1867) 54 Pa. 460; Maute v. Gross (1867) 56 Pa. 250, 94 Am. Dec. 62, 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 123; Martin v. Berens (1871) 67 Pa. 459 (rule recognized); Coughenour v. Suhre (1872) 71 Pa. 462 (same); Wharton v. Douglass (1874) 76 Pa. 273 (same); Kostenbader v. Peters (1876) 80 Pa. 438 (recognizing right to show fraud by parol, though regarding parol-evidence rule as not existing in that state); Lippincott v. Whitman (1877) 83 Pa. 244; Resh v. First Nat. Bank (1880) 93 Pa. 397; Shillingford v. Good (1880) 95 Pa. 25; Phillips v. Meily (1884) 106 Pa. 536 (regards parol-evidence rule as not in force in that state, but recognizes also the right to show fraud by parol); Wolfe v. Arrott (1885) 109 Pa. 473, 1 Atl. 333; Cover v. Manaway (1887) 115 Pa. 338, 2 Am. St. Rep. 552, 8 Atl. 393; Morris v. Shakespeare (1888) 9 Sadler, 345, 12 Atl. 414; Krueger v. Nicola (1903) 205 Pa. 38, 54 Atl. 494 (rule recognized); Atherholt V. Hughes (1904) 209 Pa. 156, 58 Atl. 269; Machin v. Prudential Trust Co. (1904) 210 Pa. 253, 59 Atl. 1073; Pusic v. Salak (1918) 261 Pa. 512, 104 Atl. 751; Ohlbaum v. Mayer (1926) 285 Pa. 260, 131 Atl. 858; Miller v. Central Trust & Sav. Co. (1926) 285 Pa. 472, 132 Atl. 579; Cridge's Estate (1927) 289 Pa. 331, 137 Atl. 455; Scott v. Burton (1840) 2 Ashm. 312 (recognizing rule); Bailey v. Wyoming Valley Ice Co. (1878) 7 Luzerne Leg. Reg. 203; Witte v. Dixon (1878) 35 Phila. Leg. Int. 114; Hardwick v. Pollock (1894) 3 Pa. Dist. R. 245; Byrod v. Sweigert (1903) 12 Pa. Dist. R. 565 (rule recognized); Oxweld Acetylene Co. v. Johnson (1919) 72 Pa. Super. Ct. 404 (fraudulent omission). See also Rearich v. Swinehart (1849) 11 Pa. 233, 51 Am. Dec. 540 (fraud in use of writing); Baltimore & P. S. B. Co. v. Brown (1867) 54 Pa. 77 (recognizing rule); Custar v. Titusville Gas & Water Co. (1869) 63 Pa. 381; Gianni v. R. Russell & Co. (1924) 281 Pa. 320, 126 Atl. 791; Commonwealth Title Ins. & T. Co. v. Folz (1902) 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 28; Delafant v. Shapiro (1919) 73 Pa. Super. Ct. 186.

Port Banga Lumber Co. v. Export & Import Lumber Co. (1914) 26 Philippine, 602; Dupilas v. Cabacungan (1917) 36 Philippine, 254 (statute); De la Cruz v. Capinpin (1918) 38 Philippine, 492 (fraudulent misreading); Bough v. Cantiveros (1919) 40 Philippine, 209 (citing statute).

Rhode Island. J. Weil & Co. v. Quidnick Mfg. Co. (1911) 33 R. I. 58, 80 Atl. 447; Continental Illustrating Co. v. Longley Motor Sales Co. (1921) 43 R. I. 552, 113 Atl. 869; Bloomberg v. Pugh Bros. Co. (1923) 45 R. I. 360, 121 Atl. 430; Barnett v. De Angelis (1926) R. I. —, 133 Atl. 349. South Carolina. Johnson v. Brockelbank (1834) 20 S. C. L. (2 Hill) 353; Willcox v. Priester (1904) 68 S. C. 106, 46 S. E. 553; Mason v. Postal Teleg. Cable Co. (1905) 71 S. C. 150, 50 S. E. 781; Parham-Thomas-McSwain v. Atlantic L. Ins. Co. (1916) 104 S. C. 223, 88 S. E. 470 (later appeal, supporting rule, in (1918) 111 S. C. 37, 96 S. E. 697); J. B. Colt Co. v. Brown (1922) 118 S. C. 368, 110 S. E. 402 (misrepresentations as to terms of contract); Palmetto Bank & T. Co. v. Grimsley (1926) 134 S. C. 493, 51 A.L.R. 42, 133 S. E. 437; Continental Jewelry Co. v. Kerhulas (1926) 136 S. C. 496, 134 S. E. 505; W. S. Gray Cotton Mills v. Spartanburg County Mills (1927) 139 S. C. 223, 137 S. E. 684. See also Dupree v. M'Donald (1812) 4 S. C. Eq. (4 Desauss.) 209 (recognizing rule); Means v. Brickell (1842) 20 S. C. L. (2 Hill) 657; Lee v. Lee (1858) 32 S. C. Eq. (11 Rich.) 574.

South Dakota. D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Stringham (1890) 1 S. D. 406, 47 N. W. 408; National Cash Register Co. v. Pfister (1894) 5 S. D. 143, 58 N. W. 270; Kirby v. Berguin (1902) 15 S. D. 444, 90 N. W. 856; Rochford v. Barrett (1908) 22 S. D. 83, 115 N. W. 522; Comeau v. Hurley (1908) 22 S. D. 310, 117 N. W. 371; Rectenbaugh v. Northwestern Port Huron Co. (1908) 22 S. D. 410, 118 N. W. 697; Sioux Remedy Co. v. Lindgren (1911) 27 S. D. 128, 130 N. W. 49 (statute); Rosholt v. Woulph (1918) 40 S. D. 269, 167 N. W. 158 (recognizing rule); Purinton v. Purinton (1920) 42 S. D. 426, 176 N. W. 31; National Cash Register Co. v. Mahaney (1925) 49 S. D. 1, 205 N. W. 710.

(1805) 1 Overt. 174, 3 Am. Dec. 752; Barnes v. Gregory (1858) 1 Head, 230; Smith v. Cozart (1859) 2 Head, 526; Gwinther v. Gerding (1859) 3 Head, 197; McKenzie v. Planters' Ins. Co. (1872) 9 Heisk. 261; McCallum v. Jobe (1877) 9 Baxt. 168, 40 Am. Rep. 84; Deakins v. Alley (1882) 9 Lea, 494; Barnard v. Roane Iron Co. (1886) 85 Tenn. 139, 2 S. W. 21, 17 Mor. Min. Rep. 94; Fine v. Stuart (1898) Tenn., 48 S. W. 371; Bennett v. Massachusetts Mut. L. Ins. Co. (1901) 107 Tenn. 371, 64 S. W. 758; First Nat. Bank v. Barbee (1924) 150 Tenn. 355, 265 S. W. 371 (recognizing rule). See also Cobb v. O'Neal (1854) 2 Sneed, 438; Wry v. Cutler (1873) 12 Heisk. 28.

Tex.

L. Ins. Co. v. Hargus (1907) Civ. App. - 99 S. W. 580; United States Gypsum Co. v. Shields (1907) Tex. Civ. App. -, 106 S. W. 724 (affirmed in (1908) 101 Tex. 473, 108 S. W. 1165); Compagnie Des Metaux Unital v. Victoria Mfg. Co. (1908) Tex. Civ. App. 107 S. W. 651; Gough Mill & Gin Co. v. Looney (1908) Tex. Civ. App. 112 S. W. 782; International Land Co. V. Parmer (1909) 58 Tex. Civ. App. 70, 123 S. W. 196; Western Mfg. Co. v. Freeman (1910) Tex. Civ. App., 126 S. W. 924; Murray Co. v. Putman (1910) 61 Tex. Civ. App. 517, 130 S. W. 631 (recognizing rule); Crockett & Sons v. Anselin (1910) Tex. Civ. App. S. W. 99; Martinez v. Coggin (1911) Tex. Civ. App. 135 S. W. 699;

Texas.-Westbrook v. Jeffers (1870) 33 Tex. 86; Robertson v. Guerin (1878) 50 Tex. 317; Routh v. Caron (1885) 64 Tex. 289; Chatham v. Jones (1888) 69 Tex. 744, 7 S. W. 600; Rapid Transit R. Co. v. Smith (1905) 98 Tex. 553, 86 S. W. 322; Browning Engineering Co. v. Willett (1921) — Tex. —, 228 S. W. 151 (affirming (1916) Tex. Civ. App. -, 186 S. W. 352); Edward Thompson Co. v. Sawyers (1921) 111 Tex. 374, 234 S. W. 873; King v. Wise (1926) Tex., 282 S. W. 570; Peak v. Blythe (1877) 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. (White & W.) 12; Glisson v. Craig (1877) 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. (White & W.) 22; Jones v. Jones (1883) 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. (Willson) 17; Halsell v. Musgrave (1893) 5 Tex. Civ. App. 476, 24 S. W. 358; Fairbanks v. Simpson (1894) - Tex. Civ. App., 28 S. W. 128; Wright v. United States Mortg. Co. (1897) Tex. Civ. App. —, 42 S. W. 789; Herring v. Mason (1897) 17 Tex. Civ. App. 559, 43 S. W. 797; Turner v. Grobe (1898) Tex. Civ. App. -, 44 S. W. 898; American Nat. Bank v. Cruger (1898) Tex. Civ. App. —, 44 S. W. 1057; Davis v. Driscoll (1899) 22 Tex. Civ. App. 14, 54 S. W. 43; Wuest v. Moehrig (1900) 24 Tex. Civ. App. 124, 57 S. W. 864 (recognizing rule); American Cotton Co. v. Collier (1902) 30 Tex. Civ. App. 105, 69 S. W. 1021; Hallwood Cash Register Co. v. Berry (1904) 35 Tex. Civ. App. 554, 80 S. W. 857; Trinity Valley Trust Co. v. Stockwell (1904) Tex. Civ. App. 81 S. W. 793; McCarthy v. Woods (1905) Tex. Civ. App. —, 87 S. W. 405; Karner v. Ross (1906) 43 Tex. Civ. App. 542, 95 S. W. 46; Mutual

132

Southern Badge Co. v. Smith (1911) Tex. Civ. App. - 141 S. W. 185;

First Nat. Bank v. Powell (1912) Tex. Civ. App. 149 S. W. 1096 (recognizing rule); Murphy v. Earl (1912) Tex. Civ. App. 150 S. W. 486; Kirby v. Thurmond (1913) Tex. Civ. App. —, 152 S. W. 1099; Benton v. Kuykendall (1913) Tex. Civ. App. 160 S. W. 438; Conn v. Rosamond (1913) - Tex. Civ. App. —, 161 S. W. 73 (dictum); Chicago, R. I. & G. R. Co. v. Howell (1914) Tex. Civ. App. 166 S. W. 81; South Texas Mortg. Co. v. Coe (1914) Tex. Civ. App. —, 166/ S. W. 419; Commonwealth Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bomar (1914) Tex. Civ. App. -, 169 S. W. 1060; Weir v. Carter (1914) Tex. Civ. App. 169 S. W. 1113; Commonwealth Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Cator (1915) Tex. Civ. App. 175 S. W. 1074 (reversed on other grounds in (1919) Tex. 216 S. W. 140); Le Master v. Hailey (1915) Tex. Civ. App. —, 176 S. W. 818; Lummus Cotton Gin Sales Co. v. Farmers' Co-op. Gin Co. (1915) Tex. Civ. App. —, 176 S. W. 894; First State Bank v. Cooper (1915) Tex. Civ. App. 179 S. W. 295; Blair & H. Co. v. Watkins (1915) Tex. Civ. App. 179 S. W. 530; AshTex. Civ. App.

1

Civ. App., 189 S. W. 988 (affirmed in

221 S. W. 577);

(1920) Tex. Calloway v. Booe (1917) Tex. Civ. App., 195 S. W. 1174; Martin v. Iroquois Mfg. Co. (1918) - Tex. Civ. App. 207 S. W. 569; Bankers' Trust Co. v. Calhoun (1919) Tex. Civ. App. 209 S. W. 826; Standard F. Ins. Co. v. Buckingham (1919) - Tex. Civ. App., 211 S. W. 531; Burchill v. Hermsmeyer (1919) Tex. Civ. App., 212 S. W. 767 (recognizing rule); Detroit Automatic Scale Co. v. G. B. R. Smith Mill. Co. (1919) - Tex. Civ. App. 217 S. W. 198; American Law Book Co. v. Fulwiler (1920) Tex. Civ. App. —, 219 S. W. 881; Speer v. Dalrymple (1920) Tex. 222 S. W. 174; Massirer v. Milam (1920) Tex. Civ. App. —, 223 S. W. 302; Walker v. Ames (1921) Tex. Civ. App. 229 S. W. 365; Fenter v. Robinson (1921) Tex. Civ. App. 230 S. W. 844 (rule recognized, though case involved illegal rather than fraudulent contract); Acme Tire & Vulcanizing Co. v. National Cash Register Co. (1921) Tex. Civ. App.

---

233 S. W. 158; Nichols v. Lorenz (1922) Tex. Civ. App. 237 S. W. 629; Lee v. First Nat. Bank (1923) Tex. Civ. App. —, 254 S. W. 394; Avery Co. v. Harrison Co. (1923) Tex. Civ. App. —, 254 S. W. 1015 (reversed on other grounds in (1924) Tex. 267 S. W. 254); Jack W. Neal Auto Co. v. Serna (1924) Tex. Civ. App. —, 259 S. W. 999; Farmers' State Bank v. Cottingham (1924) Tex. Civ. App., 261 S. W. 426; George v. Birchfield (1924) Tex. Civ. App. 264 S. W. 632; Cattle Raisers' Loan Co. v. Sutton (1925) Tex. Civ. App. —, 271 S. W. 233; White v. Carlton (1925) Tex. Civ. App. 277 S. W. 701; Commercial Jewelry Co. v. Braczyk (1925) - Tex. Civ. App. 277 S. W. 754; Southern Surety Co. v. Adams (1925) Tex. Civ. App. 278 S. W. 943; Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Higgins (1926) Tex. Civ. App., 279 S. W. 531; Waybourn v. Spurlock (1926) Tex. Civ. App. -, 281 S. W. 587; Wolff v. Cohen (1926) - Tex. Civ. App. —, 281 S. W. 646; Whitehead v. Reiger (1926) Tex. Civ. App. 282 S. W. 651; McCaskey Register Co. v. Mann (1926) Tex. Civ. App. 283 S. W. 544; Shepherd Laundries Co. v. Griffin (1926) Tex. Civ. App. 285 S. W. 683; Ray

v. Barrington (1927) Tex. Civ. App. 297 S. W. 781; Columbia Weighing Mach. Co. v. McElroy's Drug Store (1927) Tex. Civ. App. —, 299 S. W. 351; Keystone Pipe & Supply Co. v. Kleeden (1927) Tex. Civ. App. —, 299 S. W. 671 (recognizing rule); Brownlee v. Thrower (1927) Tex. Civ. App., 300 S. W. 240; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Thompson (1927) — Tex. Civ. App. —, 1 S. W. (2d) 938. See also Young v. Young (1857) 19 Tex. 504; Ranger v. Hearne (1874) 41 Tex. 258; Oriental Invest. Co. v. Barclay (1901) 25 Tex. Civ. App. 543, 64 S. W. 80 (lease may be shown to be a sham); Mars v. Morris (1907) 48 Tex. Civ. App. 216, 106 S. W. 430; Landfried v. Milam (1919) Tex. Civ. App. — 214 S. W. 847; Balaguer v. Macey (1922) Tex. Civ. App. 238 S. W. 322; Biggs v. Doak (1924) Tex. Civ. App. 259 S. W. 665

Utah. Swanson v. Sims (1919) 51 Utah, 485, 170 Pac. 774; Central Bank v. Stephens (1921) 58 Utah, 358, 199 Pac. 1018 (recognizing rule); Hanson v. Greenleaf (1923) 62 Utah, 168, 218 Pac. 969; Penn Star Min. Co. v. Lyman (1924) 64 Utah, 343, 231 Pac. 107. Vermont. Winn v. Chamberlin (1859) 32 Vt. 318 (recognizing rule); Cabot v. Christie (1869) 42 Vt. 121, 1 Am. Rep. 313; Dano v. Sessions (1893) 65 Vt. 79, 26 Atl. 585; Shanks v. Whitney (1894) 66 Vt. 405, 29 Atl. 367; Wilbur v. Prior (1893) 67 Vt. 508, 32 Atl. 474; Cameron v. Estabrooks (1901) 73 Vt. 73, 50 Atl. 638; Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk R. Co. (1909) 82 Vt. 416, 74 Atl. 99; Kinnear & G. Mfg. Co. v. Miner (1914) 88 Vt. 324, 92 Atl. 459 (recognizing rule); Drown v. Oderkirk (1915) 89 Vt. 484, 96 Atl. 11; Holbrook Grocery Co. V. Armstrong (1923) 97 Vt. 197, 122 Atl. 458. See also Mallory v. Leach (1862) 35 Vt. 156, 82 Am. Dec. 625.

Virginia.-Baker v. Berry Hill Mineral Springs Co. (1909) 109 Va. 776, 65 S. E. 656; Farmers' Mfg. Co. v. Woodworth (1909) 109 Va. 596, 64 S. E. 986; Mitchell Transparent Ice Co. V. Triumph Electric Co. (1914) 116 Va.

725, 82 S. E. 730. See also M'Mahon v. Spangler (1826) 4 Rand. 51 (recognizing rule, though case was one of alleged mistake); Starke v. Littlepage (1826) 4 Rand. 368; Towner v. Lucas (1857) 13 Gratt. 705; Barnett v. Cloyd (1919) 125 Va. 546, 100 S. E. 674.

Washington. Rathbone v. Frost (1894) 9 Wash. 162, 37 Pac. 298; Griffith v. Strand (1898) 19 Wash. 686, 54 Pac. 613; Young v. Stampfler (1902) 27 Wash. 350, 67 Pac. 721; O'Connor v. Lighthizer (1904) 34 Wash. 152, 75 Pac. 643; Nethercutt V. Hopkins (1905) 38 Wash. 577, 80 Pac. 798; Lilienthal v. Herren (1906) 42 Wash. 209, 84 Pac. 829; Kinnane v. Conroy (1909) 52 Wash. 651, 101 Pac. 223; Boynton v. Johnson (1912) 68 Wash. 370, 123 Pac. 522; Schroeder v. Hotel Commercial Co. (1915) 84 Wash. 685, 147 Pac. 417; Farley v. Letterman (1915) 87 Wash. 641, 152 Pac. 515 (recognizing rule); Gordon v. Hillman (1916) 91 Wash. 490, 158 Pac. 96; Burke v. Mayer (1919) 105 Wash. 1, 177 Pac. 662; Wells v. Walker (1920) 109 Wash. 332, 186 Pac. 857; Gleason Co. v. Carman (1920) 109 Wash. 536, 187 Pac. 329; Dieterich v. Rice (1921) 115 Wash. 365, 197 Pac. 1; T. W. Little Co. v. Fynboh (1922) 120 Wash. 595, 207 Pac. 1064, 211 Pac. 766; Flint v. Owl Land & Invest. Co. (1922) 122 Wash. 401, 210 Pac. 811; Titan Truck Co. v. Richardson (1922) 122 Wash. 452, 210 Pac. 790; Producers Grocery. Co. v. Blackwell Motor Co. (1923) 123 Wash. 144, 212 Pac. 154; Cooney v. Mossbach (1924) 128 Wash. 427, 222 Pac. 893; Puget Sound Teleph. Co. v. Telechronometer Co. (1924) 130 Wash. 468, 227 Pac. 867; Svarz v. Dunlap (1925) 134 Wash. 555, 235 Pac. 801; Bertelson v. Arthur (1926) 138 Wash. 445, 244 Pac. 695. See also Buffalo Pitts Co. v. Shriner (1905) 41 Wash. 146, 82 Pac. 1016 (recognizing rule); Miner v. Paulson (1910) 60 Wash. 150, 110 Pac. 994; Naden v. Christopher (1911) 62 Wash. 413, 113 Pac. 1116; Ennis v. New World L. Ins. Co. (1917) 97 Wash. 122, 165 Pac. 1091.

West Virginia. Crislip v. Cain (1882) 19 W. Va. 438; Depue v. Sergent (1883) 21 W. Va. 326; Fisher v. Sun Ins. Co. (1914) 74 W. Va. 694, L.R.A.1915C, 619, 83 S. E. 729; CornsThomas Engineering & Constr. Co. v. County Ct. (1922) 92 W. Va. 368, 115 S. E. 462.

Wisconsin. Fairchild v. Rasdall (1859) 9 Wis. 379 (dictum); Callanan v. Judd (1868) 23 Wis. 343 (dictum); Walker v. Ebert (1871) 29 Wis. 194, 9 Am. Rep. 548; McKesson v. Sherman (1881) 51 Wis. 303, 8 N. W. 200; Gross v. Drager (1886) 66 Wis. 150, 28 N. W. 141; Leslie v. Keepers (1887) 68 Wis. 123, 31 N. W. 486; Hurlbert v. T. D. Kellogg Lumber & Mfg. Co. (1902) 115 Wis. 225, 91 N. W. 673; Pratt v. Darling (1905) 125 Wis. 93, 103 N. W. 229; Heineman v. Old Nat. Bank (1914) 157 Wis. 289, 147 N. W. 360; Bank of Evansville v. Kurth (1918) 167 Wis. 43, 166 N. W. 658; Jones v. Brandt (1921) 173 Wis. 539, 181 N. W. 813; Wulfers v. E. W. Clark Motor Co. (1922) 177 Wis. 497, 188 N. W. 652; Luedke v. Pauly Motor Truck Co. (1924) 182 Wis. 346, 195 N. W. 853; Creasey Corp. v. Dunning (1924) 182 Wis. 388, 196 N. W. 775. See also Shepard v. Pabst (1912) 149 Wis. 35, 135 N. W. 158; Monroe v. State Bank (1923) 181 Wis. 19, 35 A.L.R. 1115, 193 N. W. 991; Malas v. Lounsbury (1927) 193 Wis. 531, 214 N. W. 332. Wyoming. Bushnell v. Elkins (1926) 34 Wyo. 495, 51 A.L.R. 13, 245 Pac. 304 (recognizing rule).

-

England. Hutchins v. Lee (1737) 1 Atk. 447, 26 Eng. Reprint, 284; Joynes v. Statham (1746) 3 Atk. 388, 26 Eng. Reprint, 1023; Hare v. Shearwood (1790) 1 Ves. Jr. 241, 30 Eng. Reprint, 322 (recognizing rule); Woollam v. Hearn (1802) 7 Ves. Jr. 211, 32 Eng. Reprint, 86; Winch v. Winchester (1812) 1 Ves. & B. 375, 35 Eng. Reprint, 146; Meyer v. Everth (1814) 4 Campb. 22, 171 Eng. Reprint, 8; Dobell v. Stevens (1825) 3 Barn. & C. 623, 107 Eng. Reprint, 864; Wright v. Crookes (1840) 1 Scott, N. R. 685; Robinson v. Vernon (1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 231, 141 Eng. Reprint, 804; Hotson v. Browne (1860) 9 C. B. N. S. 442, 142 Eng. Reprint, 174; Rogers v. Hadley (1863) 2 Hurlst. & C. 227, 159 Eng. Reprint, 97; Lewis v. Clay (1898) 67 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 224. See also Townshend v. Stangroom (1801) 6 Ves. Jr. 328, 31 Eng. Reprint, 1076, 22 Eng. Rul. Cas. 843; Doe ex dem. Small v. Allen (1799) 8 T. R. 147, 101 Eng. Reprint, 1314 (parol evidence admissible to show that will was obtained by fraud).

Canada. - Watson Mfg. Co. v. Stock (1889) 6 Manitoba L. Rep. 146; McPherson v. Wilson (1888) 15 Ont. App.

Rep. 294 (fraud as to contents or nature of paper signed); Jadis v. Porte (1915) 8 Alberta L. R. 489, 23 D. L. R. 713, 31 West L. Rep. 234 (recognizing rule); Maucotel v. Tétrault (1907) Rap. Jud. Quebec 32 C. S. 500; Church V. Laframboise (1916) Rap. Jud. Quebec 50 C. S. 385 (recognizing rule).

The rule is, of course, implied in many cases. Thus it has been said that, "where a contract of sale has been consummated by writing, the presumption is that the writing contains the whole contract, and, in the absence of fraud, mistake, or ambiguity of expression in the contract itself, parol evidence is inadmissible to change or vary its terms." Roden v. Williams (1916) 100 Neb. 46, L.R.A.1917A, 415, 158 N. W. 360. Among other cases involving similar implications of the rule, see Humphrey v. Brown (1927) 291 Pa. 53, 139 Atl. 606; East Line & R. River R. Co. v. Garrett (1879) 52 Tex. 133; Gwinn v. Rogers (1922) 92 W. Va. 533, 115 S. E. 428. In the absence of fraud, accident, or mutual mistake in the execution of the writing, an instrument stipulating that a note has been intrusted for collection to the party signing the instrument cannot be varied or contradicted by parol evidence. Barnes v. Bryce (1911) Tex. Civ. App. - 140 S. W. 240.

It is a well-settled exception to the general rule excluding parol evidence to affect a written contract, that, where the parties are induced to enter into the same by false and fraudulent representations, parol evidence may be received for the purpose of showing fraud. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. Scandinavian-American Bank

V.

(1917; D. C.) 239 Fed. 179.

Neither the common law, which accords to writings a higher dignity in the scale of evidence than mere oral statements, nor the Statute of Frauds and Perjury, inhibits the admission of parol evidence to vary or totally defeat written contracts tainted with fraud. Kennedy v. Kennedy (1841) 2 Ala. 571.

It is well settled that, in an action founded upon fraud consisting in the making of false representations by which a contract was fraudulently obtained, parol testimony is admissible to show that the making of the contract was induced by such false representations, notwithstanding the con

tract is in writing. Brown v. Le May (1911) 101 Ark. 95, 141 S. W. 759.

The general rule that parol testimony is inadmissible to contradict, add to, or vary a written contract, does not include proof by parol testimony of fraud in the execution of the contract, when a reformation of the instrument is sought; for this purpose the testimony is always admissible, and the only question is whether it establishes such fraud on its face as will induce a court of equity to interfere and correct the writing. Murray v. Dake (1873) 46 Cal. 644. To the same effect is Isenhoot V. Chamberlain (1881) 59 Cal. 630.

While it is well settled that a covenant of warranty cannot be added to a written agreement by parol evidence, it is equally well settled that false and fraudulent representations made to induce a contract evidenced by a written agreement may be introduced to defeat its enforcement; the elementary principle that fraud vitiates whatever it touches is not overruled by the doctrine that a written contract may not be varied by evidence of contemporaneous oral stipulations; and where a party is fraudulently induced to enter into a contract, the fraud cannot be rendered successful by reducing the contract to writing, but, when an innocent party is seeking to avoid the contract, relief may be had against the party perpetrating the fraud by a separate action for deceit; or, where the original party, or one substituted for the purpose of excluding the defense of fraud, is seeking the enforcement of the contract, parol evidence of the fraudulent representations used to induce the defendant to make the contract is admissible as a defense. First Nat. Bank v. Fox (1913) 40 App. D. C. 430 (writ of certiorari denied in (1913) 231 U. S. 751, 58 L. ed. 466, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 322).

The rule excluding parol evidence to vary writings does not, where the execution of a written instrument has been induced by false or fraudulent statements or promises, prevent the introduction of evidence showing such facts. Councill v. Sun Ins. Office (1924) 146 Md. 137, 51 A.L.R. 29, 126 Atl. 229.