eulogies it has received. But experience has shown that in reference to

530; Griesa v. Thomas (1916) 99 Kan. 335, 161 Pac. 670; Outcault Advertising Co. v. Smalley (1917) 101 Kan. 645, 168 Pac. 677; Gale Mfg. Co. v. King (1919) 104 Kan. 210, 178 Pac. 621; Kowing v. Reynolds (1928) 113 Kan. 317, 214 Pac. 427; Vilas State Bank v. Peterson (1923) 114 Kan. 164, 216 Pac. 1085; Logan v. Collinson (1923) 114 Kan. 620, 220 Pac. 291; Boxer v. Watchorn Oil & Gas Co. (1926) 120 Kan. 278, 243 Pac. 316; Dimmock v. Ploeger (1928) 125 Kan. 461, 264 Pac. 1044. See also Bird & M. Map Co. v. Jones (1882) 27 Kan. 177; Brenard Mfg. Co. v. Scranton (1924) 116 Kan. 93, 225 Pac. 731.

Kentucky. Anderson v. Bacon (1817) 1 A. K. Marsh. 48 (recognizing rule where instrument does not express true intention of parties, through fraud or mistake); Fishback v. Woodford (1829) 1 J. J. Marsh, 84, 19 Am. Dec. 55 (recognizing rule as to fraud in execution); Martin v. Lewis (1817) 1 A. K. Marsh. 102 (recognizing rule); Baugh v. Ramsey (1827) 4 T. B. Mon. 155 (same); Bright v. Wagle (1835) 3 Dana, 252; Edrington v. Harper (1830) 3 J. J. Marsh. 353, 20 Am. Dec. 145; Tribble v. Oldham (1830) 5 J. J. Marsh. 137; Vansant v. Runyan (1898) 19 Ky. L Rep. 1981, 44 S. W. 949; Western Mfg. Co. v. Cotton (1907) 126 Ky. 749, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 427, 104 S. W. 758; Doyle v. Offutt & Blackburn (1909) 135 Ky. 296, 122 S. W. 156; Helton v. Asher (1909) 135 Ky. 751, 123 S. W. 285; Neyaus v. Dickinson Bros. (1910) 138 Ky. 760, 129 S. W. 100; Provident Sav. Life Assur. Soc. v. Shearer (1912) 151 Ky. 298, 151 S. W. 938; Smith & N. Co. v. Morgan (1913) 152 Ky. 430, 153 S. W. 749; Crawford v. Livingston (1913) 153 Ky. 58, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 640, 154 S. W. 407 (recognizing rule); Gaines v. Gaines (1915) 163 Ky. 260, 173 S. W. 774 (antenuptial contract; rule recognized); Castleman-Blakemore Co. v. Pickrell &C. Co. (1915) 163 Ky. 750, 174 S. W. 749 (rule recognized); Scott V. Spurr (1916) 169 Ky. 575, 184 S. W. 866 (same); Calloway V. Bryant (1924) 204 Ky. 160, 263 S. W. 687 (same); Turner Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Smith (1927) 218 Ky. 503, 291 S. W. 715. See also Garten v. Chandler (1810) 2 Bibb, 246; Morris v. Morris (1811) 2 Bibb, 311; Blanchard

these very matters the rule is not perfect. The written instrument does not Moore (1830) 4 J. J. Marsh. 471; Stone v. Ramsey (1827) 4 T. B. Mon. 237; Simons v. Douglas (1920) 189 Ky. 644, 225 S. W. 721.

Louisiana. Broussard v. Sudrique (1832) 4 La. 347; Brownson v. Fenwick (1841) 19 La. 431; Bell v. Western M. & F. Ins. Co. (1843) 5 Rob. 423, 39 Am. Dec. 542; Bauduc v. Conrey (1845) 10 Rob. 466; Akin v. Drummond (1847) 2 La. Ann. 92; Morris v. Terrenoire (1847) 2 La. Ann. 458; Williams v. Vance (1847) 2 La. Ann. 908; Jamison v. Ludlow (1848) 3 La. Ann. 492; Cox v. King (1868) 20 La. Ann. 209; Thomas v. Kennedy (1872) 24 La. Ann. 209; Barth v. Kasa (1878) 30 La. Ann. 940; Le Blen v. Savoie (1903) 109 La. 680, 33 So. 729; Ford v. Parsons (1918) 142 La. 1093, 78 So. 128; Franks v. Davis Bros. Lumber Co. (1920) 146 La. 803, 84 So. 101; Great Eastern Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bullock (1922) 151 La. 209, 91 So. 680; Logan v. Walker (1922) 152 La. 880, 94 So. 430; Anzelmo v. Industrial City Co. (1927) 6 La. App. 79. See also Fouque v. Vigniaud (1819) 6 Mart. 423; Croizet v. Gaudet (1819) 6 Mart. 524. Maine. Bradbury v. White (1827) 4 Me. 391 (fraud, surprise or mistake may be shown in equity); Prentiss v. Russ (1839) 16 Me. 30; Larrabee v. Fairbanks (1844) 24 Me. 363, 41 Am. Dec. 389; Cushing v. Rice (1858) 46 Me. 303, 71 Am. Dec. 579; Holley v. Young (1876) 66 Me. 520; Parlin v. Small (1878) 68 Me. 289; Brown v. Blunt (1881) 72 Me. 415; Nichols v. Baker (1883) 75 Me. 334; Stoyell v. Stoyell (1890) 82 Me. 332, 19 Atl. 860; Doylestown Agri. Co. v. Brackett, S. & L. Co. (1912) 109 Me. 301, 84 Atl. 146. See also Judkins v. Chase (1922) 121 Me. 230, 116 Atl. 582; Prince v. Brackett, S. & L. Co. (1925) 125 Me. 31, 130 Atl. 509.

Maryland. Wesley v. Thomas (1823) 6 Harr. & J. 24 (recognizing rule in equity); Watkins v. Stockett (1823) 6 Harr. & J. 435 (same); Young v. Frost (1847) 5 Gill, 287; Farrell v. Bean (1856) 10 Md. 217; Hamburger v. Miller (1877) 48 Md. 317; Wilson v. Pritchett (1904) 99 Md. 583, 58 Atl. 360; Stouffer v. Alford (1910) 114 Md. 110, 78 Atl. 387; Ginther v. Townsend (1910) 114 Md. 122, 78 Atl. 908; Councill v. Sun Ins. Office (1924) 146 Md. 137, 51 A.L.R. 29, 126

always represent the intention of both parties, and sometimes it fails to do Atl. 229; Standard Motor Co. v. Peltzer (1925) 147 Md. 509, 128 Atl. 451. See also Davis v. Hamblin (1879) 51 Md. 525.

Massachusetts. Stackpole v. Arnold (1814) 11 Mass. 27, 6 Am. Dec. 150; Hazard v. Irwin (1836) 18 Pick. 95; Holbrook v. Burt (1839) 22 Pick. 546; Salem India Rubber Co. v. Adams (1839) 23 Pick. 256; Kimball v. Ætna Ins. Co. (1865) 9 Allen, 540, 85 Am. Dec. 786 (recognizing rule); Trambly v. Ricard (1881) 130 Mass. 259; Jewett V. Carter (1882) 132 Mass. 335; O'Donnell v. Clinton (1888) 145 Mass. 461, 14 N. E. 747; Weeks v. Currier (1898) 172 Mass. 53, 51 N. E. 416; Busiere v. Reilly (1905) 189 Mass. 518, 75 N. E. 958; Price v. Rosenberg (1908) 200 Mass. 36, 85 N. E. 887; Butler v. Prussian (1925) 252 Mass. 265, 147 N. E. 892; Reinherz v. American Piano Co. (1926) 254 Mass. 411, 150 N. E. 216; Hashem v. Massachusetts Secur. Corp. (1926) 255 Mass. 29, 150 N. E. 846; Cheraska v. Ohanasian (1927) Mass. 52 A.L.R. 1149, 156 N. E. 715. See also Glass v. Hulbert (1869) 102 Mass. 24, 3 Am. Rep. 418 (recognizing rule); Wasserman v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co. (1925) 252 Mass. 253, 147 N. E. 742 (certificate of deposit in trust company).

Michigan. Michigan C. R. Co. v. Dunham (1874) 30 Mich. 128; Hobbs v. Solis (1877) 37 Mich. 357; Match v. Hunt (1878) 38 Mich. 1; Highstone v. Burdette (1886) 61 Mich. 54, 27 N. W. 852; Bush v. Merriman (1891) 87 Mich. 260, 49 N. W. 567; Kranich v. Sherwood (1892) 92 Mich. 397, 52 N. W. 741; Peck v. Jenison (1894) 99 Mich. 326, 58 N. W. 312; Rambo v. Patterson (1903) 133 Mich. 655, 95 N. W. 722; J. B. Millet Co. v. Andrews (1913) 175 Mich. 350, 141 N. W. 578; Lake Erie Land Co. v. Chilinski (1917) 197 Mich. 214, 163 N. W. 929; Bryan v. Houseman-Spitzley Corp. (1921) 213 Mich. 236, 182 N. W. 111; J. B. Colt Co. v. Reade (1922) 221 Mich. 92, 190 N. W. 672; Rodgers v. Simons Sales Co. (1924) 227 Mich. 695, 199 N. W. 683; Plate v. Detroit Fidelity & S. Co. (1924) 229 Mich. 482, 201 N. W. 457; Plate v. Detroit Fidelity & S. Co. (1924) 229 Mich. 489, 201 N. W. 459; Miner v. Detroit Fidelity & S. Co. (1924) 229 Mich. 490, 201 N. W. 459; Chandler Motor Sales Co. v. Dertien

so as to either; and, where this has been the result of accident or mistake

(1925) 229 Mich. 630, 201 N. W. 954; Schupp v. Davey Tree Expert Co. (1926) 235 Mich. 268, 209 N. W. 85; Hanson v. Fletcher Auto Sales Co. (1927) 239 Mich. 118, 214 N. W. 187. See also International Text-Book Co. v. Marvin (1911) 166 Mich. 660, 132 N. W. 437 (recognizing rule); Elbom v. Pavsner (1923) 225 Mich. 213, 196 N. W. 442; Milwaukee Tank Works v. East Jordan Co.-op. Asso. (1928) Mich., 218 N. W. 650.

Minnesota. Kerrick v. Van Dusen (1884) 32 Minn. 317, 20 N. W. 228; Cooper v. Finke (1887) 38 Minn. 2, 35 N. W. 469; Lewis v. Willoughby (1890) 43 Minn. 307, 45 N. W. 439; Vilett v. Moler (1900) 82 Minn. 12, 84 N. W. 452; General Electric Co. v. O'Connell (1912) 118 Minn. 53, 136 N. W. 404; Meland v. Youngberg (1914) 124 Minn. 446, 145 N. W. 167, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 775; Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder (1915) 131 Minn. 125, 154 N. W. 792; Kempf v. Ranger (1916) 132 Minn. 64, 155 N. W. 1059; Nelson v. Berkner (1918) 139 Minn. 301, 166 N. W. 347; Roseberry v. Hart-Parr Co. (1920) 145 Minn. 142, 176 N. W. 175; Remington v. Savage (1921) 148 Minn. 405, 182 N. W. 524; Hansen v. Daniel Hayes Co. (1922) 152 Minn. 222, 188 N. W. 317; Silliman v. Dobner (1925) 165 Minn. 87, 205 N. W. 696; GANLEY BROS. V. BUTLER BROS. BLDG. Co. (reported herewith) ante, 1. See also Peterson v. Landahl (1902) 86 Minn. 32, 89 N. W. 1131; Finn v. Modern Brotherhood (1912) 118 Minn. 307, 136 N. W. 850.

Mississippi. - Hirschburg Optical Co. v. Jackson (1885) 63 Miss. 21; Howie v. Platt (1903) 83 Miss. 15, 35 So. 216; Patton-Worsham Drug Co. v. Planters' Mercantile Co. (1905) 86 Miss. 423, 38 So. 209; Sistrunk v. Wilson (1910) 98 Miss. 672, 54 So. 89; Hawkins v. Shields (1911) 100 Miss. 739, 4 A.L.R. 760, 57 So. 4; Blair v. Russell (1919) 120 Miss. 108, 81 So. 785; Lundy v. Hazlett (1927) 147 Miss. 808, 112 So. 591. See also Elliott v. Connell (1845) 5 Smedes & M. 91 (recognizing rule); Wren v. Hoffman (1868) 41 Miss. 616 (same); Cocke v. Blackbourn (1880) 57 Miss. 689 (same).

Missouri. Gooch v. Conner (1844) 8 Mo. 391 (rule recognized); Metropolitan Lead & Zinc Min. Co. v. Web

or fraud, the principle has been long recognized that under proper circum

ster (1905) 193 Mo. 351, 92 S. W. 79; Judd v. Walker (1908) 215 Mo. 312, 114 S. W. 979; State v. Lovan (1912) 245 Mo. 516, 151 S. W. 141; Rabenau v. Harrell (1919) 278 Mo. 247, 213 S. 309 Mo. 638, 274 S. W. 815; Liebke v. Brown-Crummer Invest. Co. (1925) 309 Mo. 638, 274 S. W. 815; Diebke v. Methudy (1883) 14 Mo. App. 65; Stone v. Barrett (1889) 34 Mo. App. 15; Beck & P. Lithographing Co. v. Obert (1892) 54 Mo. App. 240; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Owens (1899) 81 Mo. App. 201; Koffman v. Southwest Missouri Electric R. Co. (1902) 95 Mo. App. 459, 68 S. W. 212 (recognizing rule); Leicher v. Keeney (1902) 98 Mo. App. 394, 72 S. W. 145; Poindexter v. McDowell (1905) 110 Mo. App. 233, 84 S. W. 1133 (recognizing rule); Elgin Jewelry Co. v. Withaup (1906) 118 Mo. App. 126, 94 S. W. 572; Johnson County Sav. Bank v. Redfearn (1910) 141 Mo. App. 386, 125 S. W. 224; Merchants Nat. Bank v. Brisch (1911) 154 Mo. App. 631, 136 S. W. 28; Carroll v. Peak (1911) 156 Mo. App. 446, 136 S. W. 961 (misreading of contract to party executing it); Tiffany v. Times Square Auto. Co. (1913) 168 Mo. App. 729, 154 S. W. 865; Horne v. John A. Hertel Co. (1914) 184 Mo. App. 725, 171 S. W. 598; Morbrose Invest. Co. v. Flick (1915) 187 Mo. App. 528, 174 S. W. 189; Geo. O. Richardson Mach. Co. v. Nelson (1915) 191 Mo. App. 230, 177 S. W. 1082; Ruddy v. Gunby (1915) Mo. App., 180 S. W. 1043; Shallcross Printing & S. Co. v. Brown (1916) Mo. App. 185 S. W. 745; McTernan v. Mason (1916) Mo. App., 188 S. W. 923; Guarantee Veterinary Co. v. Shikles (1919) Mo. App., 207 S. W. 841; Hall v. Kansas City Southern R. Co. (1919) - Mo. App. 209 S. W. 582; Ingle System Co. v. Coil (1919) Mo. App., 211 S. W. 904; Humana Co. v. Hughes (1919) Mo. App., 213 S. W. 515 (recognizing rule); Newmeyer v. Williams (1920) 205 Mo. App. 460, 225 S. W. 109; Bixler v. Wagster (1923) Mo. App. 256 S. W. 520; Buckman v. Bankers' Mortg. Co. (1924) — Mo. App., 263 S. W. 1046; Loveland v. Chapman (1924) 218 Mo. App. 679, 267 S. W. 70; Kite v. Pittman (1926) Mo. App., 278 S. W. 830; Bunch v. Paxton, Duke & Bradley (1927) Mo. App. 295 S. W. 474; Interna

stances, and in an appropriate proceeding, the instrument may be set tional Harvester Co. v. Jeffries (1928)

Mo. App. —, 4 S. W. (2d) 501. See also Fisk v. Collins (1845) 9 Mo. 137; Crim v. Crim (1901) 162 Mo. 544, 54 L.R.A. 502, 85 Am. St. Rep. 521, 03 S. W. 489; Sawyer v. Walker (1907) 204 Mo. 133, 102 S. W. 544; Groff v. Longsdon (1922) Mo., 239 S. W. 1087; Muth v. St. Louis Trust Co. (1902) 94 Mo. App. 94, 67 S. W. 978; Guess v. Russell Bros. Clothing Co. (1921) Mo. App., 231 S. W. 1015 (holding that evidence failed to show legal fraud).

Montana. Sathre v. Rolfe (1904) 31 Mont. 85, 77 Pac. 431 (citing statute); Hillman v. Luzon Cafe Co. (1914) 49 Mont. 180, 142 Pac. 641; Petit v. Sinclier (1917) 53 Mont. 317, 163 Pac. 467; Koch v. Rhodes (1920) 57 Mont. 447, 188 Pac. 933 (citing statute); Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Wenholz (1927) 80 Mont. 82, 258 Pac. 1085. See also Lindsay v. Kroeger (1908) 37 Mont. 231, 95 Pac. 839.

Nebraska. Martens v. Pittock (1902) 3 Neb. (Unof.) 770, 92 N. W. 1038; Bauer v. Taylor (1903) 4 Neb. (Unof.) 701, 96 N. W. 268 (modified, on other grounds, on rehearing in (1904) 4 Neb. (Unof. 710, 98 N. W. 29); Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. Otis (1907) 78 Neb. 233, 110 N. W. 550; Griffin v. Bankers' Realty Invest. Co. (1920) 105 Neb. 419, 181 N. W. 169; Schuster v. North American Hotel Co. (1921) 106 Neb. 679, 186 N. W. 87 (denying rehearing in (1921) 106 Neb. 672, 184 N. W. 126); Johnson v. Nebraska Bldg. & Invest. Co. (1922) 109 Neb. 235, 190 N. W. 490; Baxter v. Nebraska Bldg. & Invest. Co. (1923) 109 Neb. 748, 192 N. W. 235; Stroman v. Atlas Ref. Corp. (1924) 112 Neb. 187, 199 N. W. 26; Nittler-Rhump v. Jones (1924) 112 Neb. 238, 199 N. W. 542. See also Bryant v. Thesing (1895) 46 Neb. 244, 64 N. W. 967.

New Hampshire. Hoitt v. Holcomb (1851) 23 N. H. 535; Lull v. Cass (1861) 43 N. H. 62; Coon v. Atwell (1866) 46 N. H. 510; Goodwin v. Horne (1881) 60 N. H. 485; Cass v. Brown (1894) 68 N. H. 85, 44 Atl. 86; Anderson v. Scott (1900) 70 N. H. 350, 47 Atl. 607.

aside or reformed, as best suits the purposes of justice. A rule of evidence

tum); Chetwood v. Brittan (1841) 2 N. J. Eq. 438 (same); Den ex dem. State Bank v. Moore (1819) 5 N. J. L. 470; Martin v. Righter (1856) 10 N. J. Eq. 510; State, Cummings, Prosecutor, v. Cass (1889) 52 N. J. L. 77, 18 Atl. 972; Sheldon Co. v. Harleigh Cemetery Asso. (1905) 73 N. J. L. 115, 62 Atl. 189; Batura v. McBride (1909) 77 N. J. L. 779, 73 Atl. 600; Gordon v. Schellhorn (1924) 95 N. J. Eq. 563, 123 Atl. 549; Margolis v. Pinnas (1924) 99 N. J. L. 515, 124 Atl. 529; Marsella v. Bloch (1925) 101 N. J. L. 115, 127 Atl. 251; Newton v. Middleton (1925) N. J. L. -, 127 Atl. 580; American Photo Player Co. v. Harriet Amusement Co. (1925) — N. J. L. —, 129 Atl. 182 (recognizing rule). See also Brewster v. Brewster (1875) 38 N. J. L. 119; Easy Term Loan Co. v. Silberman (1924) 100 N. J. L. 67, 125 Atl. 561. New Mexico. Pople v. Orekar (1916) 22 N. M. 307, 161 Pac. 1110; Berrendo Irrig. Farms. Co. v. Jacobs (1917) 23 N. M. 290, 168 Pac. 483.

New York. Jackson v. Sternberg (1822) 20 Johns. 49 (recognizing rule); Erwin v. Saunders (1823) 1 Cow. 249, 13 Am. Dec. 520 (same); Phyfe v. Wardell (1833) 2 Edw. Ch. 47 (affirmed without passing upon point in (1835) 5 Paige, 268, 28 Am. Dec. 430) (fraud in omitting to reduce part of agreement to writing); Johnson v. Miln (1835) 14 Wend. 195; Sandford v. Handy (1840) 23 Wend. 260; Best v. Stow (1845) 2 Sandf. Ch. 298 (recognizing rule); Farmers' & M. Bank v. Whinfield (1840) 24 Wend. 419; Thomas v. Beebe (1862) 25 N. Y. 244; New York Exch. Co. v. De Wolf (1865) 31 N. Y. 273; Hall v. Erwin (1876) 66 N. Y. 649; Juilliard v. Chaffee (1883) 92 N. Y. 529; Mayer v. Dean (1889) 115 N. Y. 556, 5 L.R.A. 540, 22 N. E. 261; Thomas v. Scutt (1891) 127. N. Y. 133, 27 N. E. 961 (dictum); Bridger v. Goldsmith (1894) 143 N. Y. 424, 38 N. E. 458; Callanan v. Keeseville, A. C. & L. C. R. Co. (1910) 199 N. Y. 268, 92 N. E. 747; Adams v. Gillig (1910) 199 N. Y. 314, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 127, 92 N. E. 670, 20 Ann. Cas. 910; Whipple v. Brown Bros. Co. (1919) 225 N. Y. 237, 121 N. E. 748 (affirming (1915) 170 App. Div. 531, 156 N. Y. Supp. 63); Newburger v. American Surety Co. (1926) 242 N. Y. 134, 151 N. E. 155

adopted by the courts as a protection against fraud and false swearing (recognizing rule); Koop v. Handy (1864) 41 Barb. 454; Chambovet v. Cagney (1873) 3 Jones & S. 474; Pryor v. Foster (1888) 17 N. Y. S. R. 472, 1 N. Y. Supp. 774; Universal Fashion Co. v. Skinner (1892) 64 Hun, 293, 19 N. Y. Supp. 62; Mattes v. Frankel (1892) 65 Hun, 203, 20 N. Y. Supp. 145 (affirmed in (1899) 157 N. Y. 603, 68 Am. St. Rep. 804, 52 N. E. 585); Meyers v. Rosenback (1893) 5 Misc. 337, 25 N. Y. Supp. 521; Van Alstyne v. Smith (1894) 82 Hun, 382, 31 N. Y. Supp. 277; Smith v. Hildenbrand (1895) 15 Misc. 129, 36 N. Y. Supp. 485; Allen v. Konrad (1901) 59 App. Div. 21, 68 N. Y. Supp. 1057; Alexander v. Vidootzky (1906) 49 Misc. 471, 97 N. Y. Supp. 992; Pelgram v. Ehrenzweig (1906) 51 Misc. 31, 99 N. Y. Supp. 913; Electrical Audit & Rebate Co. v. Greenberg (1907) 56 Misc. 514, 107 N. Y. Supp. 110; Duffy v. Meyer (1907) 122 App. Div. 838, 107 N. Y. Supp. 672; Walker v. Freedman (1909) 114 N. Y. Supp. 51; Scarsdale Pub. Co. V. Carter (1909) 63 Misc. 271, 116 N. Y. Supp. 731; Kreshover v. Berger (1909) 135 App. Div. 27, 119 N. Y. Supp. 737 (reversing (1909) 62 Misc. 613, 116 N. Y. Supp. 20); Tannenbaum v. Schaffer (1910) 122 N. Y. Supp. 180; Klein v. Williams (1910) 123 N. Y. Supp. 52; Carroll v. Blum (1915) 152 N. Y. Supp. 961; Mundler v. Palmer (1917) 165 N. Y. Supp. 987; Simpson v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. (1918) 170 N. Y. Supp. 166; Marcus Brown Constr. Co. v. Schlivek (1918) 170 N. Y. Supp. 430; Sommer v. Ehrgott (1920) 193 App. Div. 663, 184 N. Y. Supp. 802; Hendricks v. Clements (1921) 195 App. Div. 144, 186 N. Y. Supp. 378 (recognizing rule); Export & Import News Bureau v. Rosenthal (1921) 188 N. Y. Supp. 846; Henius v. S. & R. Frame Mfg. Co. (1921) 189 N. Y. Supp. 176; Kulerban Holding Corp. v. Blauner (1921) 190 N. Y. Supp. 484; John N. Benedict Co. v. McKeage (1922) 201 App. Div. 161, 195 N. Y. Supp. 228; Jackson v. State (1924) 210 App. Div. 115, 205 N. Y. Supp. 658 (affirmed on opinion below in (1925) 241 N. Y. 563, 150 N. E. 556); Eufemia v. Moan (1923) 206 N. Y. Supp. 185; White v. Hiawatha Silver Black Fox Corp. (1924) 123 Misc. 868, 206 N. Y. Supp. 847; Bennett v. Burch-Buell Motor Corp. (1927) 221 App. Div. 517, 224 N.

would, as was said in regard to the

Y. Supp. 666; Schickler v. Penrod Co. (1928) 222 App. Div. 627, 227 N. Y. Supp. 331. See also Dambman v. Schulting (1875) 4 Hun, 50; Pelly v. Onderdonk (1891) 61 Hun, 314, 15 N. Y. Supp. 915; Sherff v. Jacobi (1893) 71 Hun, 391, 25 N. Y. Supp. 37; Hunter v. Batterson (1899) 27 Misc. 642, 58 N. Y. Supp. 396 (affirmed in (1899) 28 Misc. 479, 59 N. Y. Supp. 501).

North Carolina.-Smith v. Williams (1810) 5 N. C. (1 Murph.) 426, 4 Am. Dec. 564; Ward v. Ledbetter (1837) 21 N. C. (1 Dev. & B. Eq.) 496; Powell v. Heptinstall (1878) 79 N. C. 206; McLeod v. Bullard (1881) 84 N. C. 515; Knight v. Houghtalling (1881) 85 N. C. 17; Cutler v. Roanoke R. & Lumber Co. (1901) 128 N. C. 477, 39 S. E. 30; Gwaltney v. Provident Sav. Life Assur. Soc. (1903) 132 N. C. 925, 44 S. E. 659 (rehearing denied in (1904) 134 N. C. 552, 47 S. E. 122); Tyson v. Jones (1909) 150 N. C. 181, 63 S. E. 734; American Pure Food Co. v. G. W. Elliott & Co. (1909) 151 N. C. 393, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 910, 66 S. E. 451; Unitype Co. v. Ashcraft Bros. (1911) 155 N. C. 63, 71 S. E. 61; Greensboro L. Ins. Co. v. Knight (1912) 160 N. C. 592, 76 S. E. 623; White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Bullock (1912) 161 N. C. 1, 76 S. E. 634; J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. McKay (1913) 161 N. Č. 584, 77 S. E. 848; Hunter v. Sherron (1918) 176 N. C. 226, 97 S. E. 5; White v. Fisheries Products Co. (1923) 185 N. C. 68, 116 S. E. 169; Wolf Co. v. Smith Mercantile Co. (1925) 189 N. C. 322, 127 S. E. 208; F. L. Voliva Hardware Co. v. Kinion (1926) 191 N. C. 218, 131 S. E. 579. See also Ray v. Blackwell (1886) 94 N. C. 10 (fraudulent omission); Carrington v. Waff (1893) 112 N. C. 115, 16 S. E. 1008 (recognizing rule); Merchants & F. Nat. Bank v. McElwee (1889) 104 N. C. 305, 10 S. E. 295; American Potato Co. v. Jenette Bros. (1916) 172 N. C. 1, 89 S. E. 791 (dictum).

North Dakota. Guild v. More (1915) 32 N. D. 432, 155 N. W. 44; Elliott Supply Co. v. Green (1917) 35 N. D. 641, 160 N. W. 1002; Mathias v. State Farmers' Mut. Hail Ins. Co. (1918) 40 N. D. 240, 168 N. W. 664; National Cash Register Co. v. Midway City Creamery Co. (1922) 49 N. D. 441, 191 N. W. 762; Dalheimer v. Lucia (1923) 50 N. D. 78, 194 N. W. 925; Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v.

analogous rule known as the Statute Huncovsky (1924) 52 N. D. 112, 202 N. W. 280. See also Sargent v. Cooley (1902) 12 N. D. 1, 94 N. W. 576 (dictum); Raich v. Lindebek (1917) 36 N. D. 133, 161 N. W. 1026.

Ohio. State v. Perry (1834) Wright, 662; United States Home & D. Asso. v. Reams (1881) 8 Ohio Dec. Reprint, 272; United States Home & D. Asso. v. Kirk (1882) 8 Ohio Dec. Reprint, 592; Metzger v. Roberts (1904) 26 Ohio C. C. 675, 5 Ohio C. C. N. S. 344; Ziliox v. City View Apartment & Storage Co. (1925) 20 Ohio App. 156, 153 N. E. 183. See also Columbus & T. R. Co. v. Steinfeld (1884) 42 Ohio St. 449; Williams v. Williams (1857) 2 Ohio Dec. Reprint, 478; Freeman v. Muth (1878) 3 Ohio L. J. 914, 7 Ohio Dec. Reprint, 555.

Oklahoma.

T. & H. Smith & Co. v. Thesmann (1908) 20 Okla. 133, 93 Pac. 977, 15 Ann. Cas. 1161; American Trust Co. v. Chitty (1912) 36 Okla. 479, 129 Pac. 51; Colonial Jewelry Co. v. Jones (1912) 36 Okla. 788, 127 Pac. 405; Shuler v. Hall (1914) 42 Okla. 325, 141 Pac. 280; McLean v. Southwestern Casualty Ins. Co. (1916) 61 Okla. 79, 159 Pac. 660; Thompson v. Vaught (1916) 61 Okla. 195, 160 Pac. 625; Nickle v. Reeder (1917) 66 Okla. 10, 166 Pac. 895; American Bankers' Ins. Co. v. Hopkins (1917) 67 Okla. 150, 169 Pac. 489; Hooker v. Wilson (1918) 69 Okla. 43, 169 Pac. 1097; Seneca Co. v. Darnell (1921) 81 Okla. 213, 197 Pac. 453; Smith v. Ferguson (1923) 96 Okla. 150, 221 Pac. 447; Waite Phillips Co. v. Sidwell (1926) 120 Okla. 81, 250 Pac. 415. See also Coyle v. Arkansas Valley & W. R. Co. (1913) 41 Okla. 648, 139 Pac. 294; Bonfils v. Geeslin (1926) 120 Okla. 130, 247 Pac. 673.

Oregon. Foss v. Newbury (1891) 20 Or. 257, 25 Pac. 669; Hetrick v. Gerlinger Motor Car Co. (1917) 84 Or. 133, 164 Pac. 379 (statute); Carty v. McMenamin (1923) 108 Or. 489, 216 Pac. 228; First Nat. Bank v. Anderson (1924) 112 Or. 167, 228 Pac. 929; Williams v. Pacific States F. Ins. Co. (1926) 120 Or. 1, 251 Pac. 258.