Even if the written instrument has been delivered, either party has the right to show any facts which prevent the writing from constituting a valid contract. If this were not so, a written contract would be free from all defenses and outside of all rules which determine the validity of contracts. At the same time, the party who is seeking to uphold the contract has the right to introduce evidence to contradict that offered by the adversary party and to show that the contract is valid. Thus evidence that the contract,1 as a note not in the hands of a bona fide holder;2 or a note and mortgage;3 or a sealed instrument in equity4 is without consideration; or that the contract was entered into by mistake,5 either

15 Stanton v R. R., 59 Conn. 272; 21 Am. St. Rep. 110; 22 Atl. 300.

16 Mouat v. Montague, 122 Mich. 334; 81 N. W. 112.

17Faulkner v. Gilbert, 61 Neb. 602; 85 N. W. 843; rehearing refused, 62 Neb. 126.

18 Woodcock v. Bostic, 128 N. C. 243; 38 S. E. 881.

1 Brown v. Smedley, - Mich. -; 98 N. W. 856.

2 Hawkins v. Collier, 101 Ga. 145;

28 S. E. 632; Beaty v. Carr, 109 la. 183; 80 N. W. 326; First National Bank v. Felt, 100 la. 680; 69 N. W. 1057; Bigelow v. Bigelow, 93 Me. 439; 45 Atl. 513.

3Baird v. Baird, 145 111. 659; 28 L. R. A. 375; Anderson v. Lee, 73 Minn. 397; 76 N. W. 24.

4 Hale v. Dressen, 73 Minn. 277; 76 N. W. 31.

5 Greer v. Caldwell, 14 Ga. 207; Blanchard v. Kenton, 4 Bibb. (Ky.) as to its terms6 or subject-matter,7 such as prevents the contract from taking effect, or that the contract was entered into because of fraud,8 either in the execution,9 or the inducement,10 does not violate the parol evidence rule and is admissible. However, a breach of contract is not fraud;11 and hence no relief on the ground of fraud can be given against one who breaks an oral term of a contract which, except such term, has been put in the form of a complete written contract.12 Thus under a written contract to carry mails according to a certain schedule, an oral promise to procure a change in such schedule cannot be treated as fraud.13 The parol evidence rule has, of course, no application to mistake in the expression where reformation is sought.14 If it did, reformation could never be had under any circumstances. The courts are careful, however, to limit reformation to cases of mistake, fraud and the like, since if by reformation any oral term could be added to the written contract the sole effect of the parol evidence rule would be to drive the parties to equity.15

451; Lindley v. Sharp, 7 T. B. Mon.

(Ky.) 248; Murphy v. Trigg, 1 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 72; Butler v. State, 81 Miss. 734; 33 So. 847; Bryce v. Lo-rillard F. Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 240; 14 Am. Rep. 249; Welles v. Yates, 44 N. Y. 525; Coles v. Bowne, 10 Paige

(N. Y.) 526.

6 Barrie v. Frost, 105 111. App. 187; Atwater v. Cardwell (Ky.), 54 S. W. 960; Gwaltney v. Assurance Society, 132 N. C. 925; 44 S. E. 659; Lord v. Accident Association, 89 Wis. 19; 46 Am. St. Rep. 815; 26 L. R. A. 741; 61 N. W. 293.

7 Bedell v. Wilder, 65 Vt. 406; 36 Am. St. Rep. 871; 26 Atl. 589.

8Amer v. High tower, 70 Cal. 440; McCrary v. Pritchard, 119 Ga. 876; 47 S. E. 341; Barrie v. Miller, 104 Ga. 312; 69 Am. St. Rep. 171; 30 S. E. 840; Race v. Weston, 86 111. 91; Vilett v. Moler, 82 Minn. 12; 84 N. W. 452; Howie v. Pratt, -Miss. -; 35 So. 216; Anderson v. Scott, 70 N. H. 350; 47 Atl. 607; Cass v. Brown, 68 N. H. 85; 44 Atl. 86; Hoitt v. Holcomb, 23 N. H. 535; Mayer v. Dean, 115 N. Y. 556; 5 L. R. A. 540; 22 N. E. 261; Fine v. Stuart (Tenn. Ch. App.), 48 S. W. 371; Griffith v. Strand, 19 Wash. 686; 54 Pac. 613.

9 Gore v. Malsby, 110 Ga. 893; 36 S. E. 315; McBride v. Publishing Co., 102 Ga. 422; 30 S. E. 999; Cutler v. Lumber Co., 128 N. C. 477; 39 S. E. 30; Cameron v. Esta-brooks, 73 Vt. 73; 50 Atl. 638. Where the party signing a release was unable to understand its contents because of pain. Girard v. Wheel Co., 123 Mo. 358; 45 Am. St. Rep. 556; 25 L. R. A. 514; 27 S. W. 648. As to the existence of the subject-matter. J. G. Shaw Blank Book Co. v. Maybell, 86 Minn. 241; 90 N. W. 392.

10 Barrie v. Miller, 104 Ga. 312; 69 Am. St. Rep. 171; 30 S. E. 840; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Gibson, 73 la. 525; 5 Am. St. Rep. 697; 35 N. W. 603; Sisson v. Kaper, 105 la. 599; 75 N. W. 490; Marston v. Ins. Co., 89 Me. 266; 56 Am. St. Rep. 412; 36 Atl. 389; Rambo v. Patterson, -Mich. -; 95 N. W. 722; Bauer v. Taylor (Neb.), 96 N. W. 268; Mayer v. Dean, 115 N. Y. 556; 5 L. R. A. 540; 22 N. E. 261; Maute v. Gross, 56 Pa. St. 250; 94 Am. Dec. 62. Contracts within the statute of Frauds: Sale of realty. Gustaf-son v. Rustemeyer, 70 Conn. 125; 66 Am. St. Rep. 92; 39 L. R. A. 644; 39 Atl. 104.

11 See Sec. 99.

12Knowlton v. Keenan, 146 Mass. 86; 4 Am.. St. Rep. 282; 15 N. E. 127.