I dissent from tbe judgment of affirmance, being of the opinion that the matters relied upon by the petitioner as entitling him to the relief sought depended necessarily upon parol evidence, which could not be competent evidence in the case, as its introduction would violate the rule against the admission of parol testimony to vary, add to, or alter the terms of a written contract. I am of the opinion that the written contract showing the agreement of the parties was full and complete, and could not be varied by parol evidence of negotiations' and stipulations made prior to the making of the written contract.

1. Fraud voids all contracts. Civil Code (1910), § 4254. 2. Parol evidence is admissible to show that a writing was either originally void or has subsequently become such. Civil Code (1910), § 5790.

3. The amendment to the plaintiff’s petition did not set forth a new cause of action, and was properly allowed by the court.

4. The petition set forth a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer thereto on any of the grounds thereof.

Judgment affirmed.