This cause was transferred to this court after decision by the District Court of Appeal. We are satisfied with and adopt a portion of the opinion rendered therein, which is as follows:

Inasmuch as the cause must go hack to the trial court for further proceedings therein it becomes necessary for us to determine whether oral testimony may be introduced to establish the alleged promise of respondent that if appellants executed the note and mortgage and did the other things mentioned, they would not be required “to make any payments on their indebtedness, either interest or principal, until this money came in from the 1932 crop of lettuce seed, and that the bank would permit them to go ahead and operate and produce this 1932 crop”. While we have quoted the exact language used in the opening statement of appellants, it is manifest that the promise which it is claimed they relied upon was, as pleaded by them, that the respondent would “extend” or “postpone” all payments for the period of one year. This promise is in direct contravention of the unconditional promise contained in the note to pay the money on demand. The question then is: Is such a promise the subject of parol proof for the purpose of establishing fraud as a defense to the action or by way of cancelling the note, assuming, of course, that it can be properly coupled with proof that it was made without any intention of performing it? Our conception of the rule which permits parol evidence of fraud to establish the invalidity of the instrument is that it must tend to establish some independent fact or representation, some fraud in the procurement of the instrument or some breach of confidence concerning its use, and not a promise directly at variance with the promise of the writing. We find apt language in Towner v. Lucas’ Exr., 54 Va. (13 Gratt.) 705 , 716, in which to express our conviction: “It is reasoning in a circle, to argue that fraud is made out, when it is shown by oral testimony that the obligee contemporaneously with the execution of a bond, promised not to enforce it. Such a principle would nullify the rule: for conceding that such an agreement is proved, or any other contradicting the written instrument, the party seeking to enforce the written agreement according to its terms, would always be guilty of fraud. The true question is, Was there any such agreement? And this can only be established by legitimate testimony. For reasons founded in wisdom and to prevent frauds and perjuries, the rule of the common law excludes such oral testimony of the alleged agreement; and as it cannot be proved by legal evidence, the agreement itself in legal contemplation, cannot be regarded as existing in fact. Neither a court of law nor of equity can act upon the hypothesis of fraud where there is no legal proof of it.” The rule referred to in the quotation has found expression in sections 1625 and 1698 of the Civil Code and section 1856 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, according to our authorities, is one not only of evidence but also of substantive law. (Harding v. Robinson, 175 Cal. 534 [ 166 Pac. 808 ]; Lindemann v. Coryell, 59 Cal. App. 788 [ 212 Pac. 47, 48 ].) The last-cited case confirms the opinion we entertain, for while it is said no question of fraud was raised, yet the effort was made to prove that the note was executed upon the understanding that the payee would not enforce payment until the payor had sold sufficient real property to enable him to pay. It was there said, after citing a pertinent section of Wigmore on Evidence, that fraud may not be established by parol evidence to contradict the terms of the writing “when the statements relate to rights depending upon contracts yet to be made, to which the person complaining is a party, as under such circumstances he has it in his power to guard in advance against any and all consequences of a subsequent change of conduct by the person with whom he is dealing, and to admit evidence of extrinsic agreements would be to open the door to all evils that the parol evidence rule was designed to prevent.” For further authorities involving a like principle see McArthur v. Johnson, 216 Cal. 580 [ 15 Pac. (2d) 151 ]; Pierce v. Avakian, 167 Cal. 330, 331 [ 139 Pac. 799 ], Booth v. Hoskins, 75 Cal. 271 [ 17 Pac. 225 ], and Estate of Watterson, 130 Cal. App. 741 [ 20 Pac. (2d) 772 ].

For the reasons stated the judgment is reversed.

Shenk, J., Waste, C. J., Preston, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.