Fraud consisting of oral misrepresentations may avoid a contract in writing,1 including

3 Coles v. Kennedy, 81 Ia. 360, 25 Am. St. Rep. 503, 48 N. W. 1088.

4 Manley v. Carl. 11 Ohio C. D. 1.

5 EIlet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Martin, 222 Fed. 851. 138 C. C. A. 277; Brown-ing v. Bank, 13 D. C. App. 1; Remington Sewing Machine Co. v. Kezertee, 40 Wis. 409, 5 N. W. 809.

6 Spencer v. Sandusky, 46 W. Va. 582, 33 S. E. 221.

7 Craig v. Hamilton, 118 Ind. 566, 21 N. E. 315.

8 Burns v. Dockray, 156 Mass. 135, 30 N. E. 551.

9Atwood v. Chapman, 68 Me. 36, 28 Am. Rep. 5.

10 Van Houten v. Morse, 162 Mass. 414, 44 Am. St. Rep. 373, 26 L. R. A. 430, 38 N. E. 705. (She had made statements also concerning the standing of her family in their home in the South, omitting to disclose that she was in part of negro ancestry.)

11 Lomerson v. Johnston, 47 N. J. Eq. 312, 24 Am. St. Rep. 410, 20 Atl. 675.

12 Baker v. Seahorn, 31 Tenn. (1 Swan) 54, 55 Am. Dec. 724.

13 Traber v. Hicks, 131 Mo. 180, 82 S. W. 1145.

1 Antle v. Sexton, 137 III. 410, 27 N. E. 691 [affirming 32 III. App. 437]; Reagan v. Union Mut. L. Ins. Co., 189 contracts which must be in writing.2 The so-called parol evidence rule has no application to extrinsic evidence when used to attack the validity of the contract.3