Washington. Griffith v. Strand, 19 Wash. 686, 54 Pac. 613; Union Machinery & Supply Co v. Darnell, 89 Wash. 226, 154 Pac. 183; Ennis v. New World Life Insurance Co., 97 Wash. 122, 165 Pac. 1091.

West Virginia. Rosin Coal Land Co. v. Martin, 81 W. Va. 33, 94 S. E. 358.

4 Alabama. Commercial Finance Co. v. Cooper Bros., 196 Ala. 285, 71 So. 684; Adams Hardware Co. v. Wimbish, - Ala. - , 78 So. 902.

Arkansas. Hampton v. Haneline, 125 Ark. 441, 189 S. W. 40.

Georgia. McBride v. Publishing Co., 102 Ga. 422, 30 S. E. 999; Gore v. Malsby, 110 Ga. 893, 36 S. E. 315.

Kansas. Griesa v. Thomas, 99 Kan. 335, 161 Pac. 670.

North Carolina. Cutler v. Lumber Co., 128 N. Car. 477, 39 S. E. 30.

Oregon. Interior Warehouse Co. v. Dunn, 80 Or. 528, 157 Pac. 806.

Vermont. Cameron v. Eatabrooks, 73 Vt. 73, 50 Atl. 638; Drown v. Oder-kirk, 89 Vt. 484, 96 Atl. 11. 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.

5United States. Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. Scandinavian-American Bank, 239 Fed. 179.

Alabama. Manning v. Carter, - Ala. - , 77 So. 744.

Arkansas. Barker v. Lack, 120 Ark. 323, 179 S. W. 493.

Georgia. Barrie v. Miller, 104 Ga. 312, 69 Am. St. Rep. 171, 30 S. E. 840.

Iowa. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Gibson, 73 Ia. 525, 5 Am. St. Rep. 697, 35 X. W. 603; Sisson v. Kaper, 105 Ia. 599,

75 N. W. 490; King-Yessler Real Estate Co. v. Messer (Ia.), 160 N. W. 298; Port Huron Machine Co. v. Davis (Ia.), 162 N. W. 228.

Kansas. Griesa v. Thomas, 99 Kan. 335, 161 Pac. 670; Outcault Advertising Co. v. Smalley, 101 Kan. 645, 168 Pac. 677.

Maine. Marston v. Ins. Co., 89 Me. 266, 56 Am. St. Rep. 412, 36 Atl. 389.

Massachusetts. Reagan v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co., 189 Mass. 555, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 821, 76 N. E 217.

Michigan. Rambo v. Patterson, 133 Mich. 655, 95 N. W. 722; Lake Erie Land Co. v. Chilinski, 197 Mich. 214, 163 N. W. 929.

Minnesota. Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301, 166 N. W. 347.

Nebraska. Bauer v. Taylor (Neb.), 96 N. W. 268.

New York. Mayer v. Dean, 115 N. Y. 556, 5 L. R. A. 540, 22 N. E. 261

North Carolina. American Pure Food Co. v. Elliott, 151 N. Car. 393, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 910, 66 S. E. 451

North Dakota. Elliott Supply Co. v. Green, 35 N. D. 641, 160 N. W. 1002.

Oklahoma. Nickle v. Reeder, - Okla. - , 166 Pac. 895; American Bankers' Insurance Co. v. Hopkins, - Okla.

- 169 Pac. 489; Hooker v. Wilson, - Okla. - , 169 Pac. 1097.

Pennsylvania. Maute v. Gross, 56 Pa. St. 250, 94 Am. Dec. 62.

Washington. American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Bremerton Gas Co., 99 Wash. 18, 168 Pac. 775.

Wisconsin. Bank v. Kurth, 167 Wis. 43, 166 N. W. 658.

Contracts within the Statute of Frauds: sale of realty. Gustafson v. Rustemeyer, 70 Conn. 125, 66 Am. St. Rep. 92, 39 L. R. A. 644, 39 Atl. 104.

6 Rosholt v. Woulph, - S. D. - , 167 N. W. 158 (obiter, as no fraud was shown to exist).

7Upham v. Mickleson (Ia.), 157 N. W. 264; Bank v. Kurth, 167 Wis. 43, 166 N. W. 658.

8 American Pure Pood Co. v. Elliott, 151 N. Car. 393, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 910, 66 S. E. 451.

9 Manning v. Carter, - Ala. - , 77 So. 744.

10Houge v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 174 Ia. 607, 156 N. W. 862.

11 Lavalleur v. Hahn, 152 Ia. 649, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 24, 132 N. W. 877; King-Yessler Real Estate Co. v. Messer (Ia.). 160 N. W. 298; American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Bremerton Gas Co., 99 Wash. 18, 168 Pac. 775.

If a contract is entered into with the intention of performing it, breach of contract is not of itself fraud,18 and hence no relief on the ground of fraud can be given against one who breaks an oral term of a contract which, except as to such term, has been put in the form of a complete written contract.19 Thus under a written contract to carry mails according to a certain schedule, an oral promise to procure a change in such schedule can not be treated as fraud.20 If the breach of such oral covenant could be treated as fraud, nothing would be left of the parol evidence rule.

12Lavalleur v. Hahn, 152 Ia. 649, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 24, 132 N. W. 877.

13 Reagan v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co., 189 Mass. 555, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 821, 76 N. E. 217; Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder, 131 Minn. 125, 154 N. W. 792; Berrendo Irrigated Farms Co. v. Jacobs, 23 N. M. 290, 168 Pac. 483; Elliott Supply Co. v. Green, 35 N. D. 641, 160 N. W. 1002.

14 Hutchison v. Westbrook, 191 Mich. 484. 158 N. W. 135.

15 Hutchison v. Westbrook, 191 Mich. 484, 158 N. \V. 135.

16 Adams Hardware Co. v. Wimbish,

- Ala. - , 78 So. 902; Hampton v. Haneline, 125 Ark. 441, 189 S. W. 40; Greisa v. Thomas, 99 Kan. 335, 161 Pac. 670; Drown v. Oderkirk, 89 Vt. 484, 96 Atl. 11.

17Maxson v. Ashland Iron Works, 85 Or. 345, 166 Pac. 37, 167 Pac. 271.

See Sec. 2137 et seq.

18 See Sec. 295.

19 Knowlton v. Keenan, 146 Mass. 86, 4 Am. St. Rep. 282, 15 N. E. 127; Holland City State Bank v. Meeuwsen, 192 Mich. 326, 158 N. W. 1032.

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

In Pennsylvania, breach of an oral contract,21 such as a contract by which the payee of a note agrees to pay a certain obligation to the maker before the maker is to be required to pay the note,22 is regarded as fraud which enables the maker to set up such oral contract as a defense. In Pennsylvania, however, the parol evidence rule has a different meaning from that which it has in most jurisdictions.23 If a contract provides that a negotiable .instrument shall not take effect until the happening of a certain event, and that it shall not be negotiated until such event takes place, breach of the agreement not to negotiate has been said to be fraud.24 Cases of this sort, however, can be explained better on the theory that such extrinsic evidence annexes a condition precedent,25 and that such condition can be shown as against all but bona fide holders.

The making of a contract without the intention of keeping it amounts to fraud,26 and extrinsic evidence of such a promise is admissible upon the issue of fraud, although it tends to contradict the terms of the written instrument.27