ble according to the particular circumstances. The usual grounds assigned

Franco-Egyptienne v. Brown (1888; C. C.) 34 Fed. 162; Burton v. Platter (1893) 4 C. C. A. 95, 10 U. S. App. 657, 53 Fed. 901; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dearborn (1894) 9 C. C. A. 286, 23 U. S. App. 66, 60 Fed. 880; Union P. R. Co. v. Barnes (1894) 12 C. C. A. 48, 27 U. S. App. 421, 64 Fed. 80; White v. Ewing (1895) 16 C. C. A. 296, 37 U. S. App. 365, 69 Fed. 451; Greene v. St. Denis Soc. (1897; C. C.) 81 Fed. 64, appeal dismissed in (1898) 28 C. C. A. 682, 50 U. S. App. 493, 84 Fed. 1017; Hansen v. Baltimore Packing & Cold-Storage Co. (1898; C. C.) 86 Fed. 832; New York L. Ins. Co. v. McMaster (1898) 30 C. C. A. 532, 57 U. S. App. 638, 87 Fed. 63; Patent Title Co. v. Stratton (1898; C. C.) 89 Fed. 174; Huber v. Guggenheim (1898; C. C.) 89 Fed. 598; Bartol v. Walton & W. Co. (1899; C. C.) 92 Fed. 13; Daniels v. Benedict (1899) 38 C. C. A. 592, 97 Fed. 367; Kimber v. Young (1905) 70 C. C. A. 178, 137 Fed. 744, later appeal in (1907) 84 C. C. A. 647, 157 Fed. 199 (recognizing_rule); Crosby v. Emerson (1906) 74 C. C. A. 45, 142 Fed. 713; Farwell v. Colonial Trust Co. (1906) 78 C. C. A. 22, 147 Fed. 480; Chamberlayne v. American Law Book Co. (1906; C. C.) 148 Fed. 316; Re National Pressed Brick Co. (1914) 129 C. C. A. 398, 212 Fed. 878; Mamaux v. Cape May Real Estate Co. (1914) 131 C. C. A. 63, 214 Fed. 757; Gleason v. Thaw (1916) 148 C. C. A. 336, 234 Fed. 570, writ of certiorari denied in (1917) 243 U. S. 656, 61 L. ed. 949, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 481; Church v. Swetland (1917) 156 C. C. A. 69, 243 Fed. 289, appeal dismissed in (1919) 249 U. S. 579, 63 L. ed. 785, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 256 (recognizing rule); Baker V. Baker (1924) 54 App. D. C. 214, 296 Fed. 961; Scott v. Empire Land Co. (1925; D. C.) 5 F. (2d) 873; Mandelbaum v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1925; C. C. A. 8th) 6 F. (2d) 818.

Alabama. Lake v. Security Loan Asso. (1882) 72 Ala. 207; Montgomery Southern R. Co. v. Matthews (1884) 77 Ala. 357, 54 Am. Rep. 60; Brock v. Brock (1889) 90 Ala. 86, 9 L.R.A. 287, 8 So. 11; Bradfield v. Elyton Land Co. (890) 93 Ala. 527, 8 So. 383; Birmingham Warehouse & Elevator Co. v. Elyton Land Co. (1890) 93 Ala. 549, 9 So. 235; Piedmont Land Improv. Co. v. Piedmont Foundry & Mach. Co. (1892) 96 Ala. 389, 11 So. 332; Nelson v. Shel

are that such representations and promises should be regarded merely as

by Mfg. & Improv. Co. (1892) 96 Ala. 515, 38 Am. St. Rep. 116, 11 So. 695; Cooke v. Cook (1893) 100 Ala. 175, 14 So. 171; Joseph v. Decatur Land Improv. & Furnace Co. (1893) 102 Ala. 346, 14 So. 739; Ansley v. Bank of Piedmont (1896) 113 Ala. 467, 59 Am. St. Rep. 122, 21 So. 59; Stacey v. Walter (1899) 125 Ala. 291, 82 Am. St. Rep. 235, 28 So. 89; Johnson v. National Bldg. & L. Asso. (1899) 125 Ala. 465, 82 Am. St. Rep. 257, 28 So. 2; Bell v. Southern Home Bldg. & L. Asso. (1903) 140 Ala. 371, 103 Am. St. Rep. 41, 37 So. 237; Majestic Coal Co. v. Anderson (1919) 203 Ala. 233, 82 So. 483; Preston Motors Corp. v. Wood (1922) 208 Ala. 172, 94 So. 70; Hawkins v. People's Trust & Sav. Bank (1927) 215 Ala. 598, 111 So. 641; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. McCrory (1911) 2 Ala. App. 531, 56 So. 822 (recognizing rule); Southern Loan & T. Co. v. Gissendaner (1912) 4 Ala. App. 523, 58 So. 737; Patton v. Tidwell (1921) 17 Ala. App. 663, 87 So. 624. Arizona. Hurley v. Y. M. C. A. (1914) 16 Ariz. 26, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 220, 140 Pac. 816; Lentz v. Landers (1919) 21 Ariz. 117, 185 Pac. 821.

Arkansas. Hawkins v. Campbell (1846) 6 Ark. 513; Dickson v. Richardson (1855) 16 Ark. 114; Mississippi, O. & R. River R. Co. v. Cross (1859) 20 Ark. 443; Hirsch v. Hirsch (1860) 21 Ark. 342; Conoway v. Newman (1909) 91 Ark. 324, 121 S. W. 353; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Morgan (1914) 115 Ark. 529, 171 S. W. 1187; Harriage v. Daley (1915) 121 Ark. 23, 180 S. W. 333; Harris v. Trueblood (1916) 124 Ark. 308, 186 S. W. 836; Scullin v. Newman (1917) 127 Ark. 227, 191 S. W. 922; Lawrence v. Mahoney (1920) 145 Ark. 310, 225 S. W. 340; Bankers' Utilities Co. v. Cotton Belt Sav. & T. Co. (1922) 152 Ark. 135, 237 S. W. 707 (recognizing rule); Lescher v. Baird (1927) Ark. 294 S. W. 17. See also Collins v. Southern Brick Co. (1909) 92 Ark. 504, 135 Am. St. Rep. 197, 123 S. W. 652, 19 Ann. Cas. 881.

California.-Brison v. Brison (1888) 75 Cal. 525, 7 Am. St. Rep. 189, 17 Pac. 689 (recognizing rule); Lawrence v. Gayetty (1889) 78 Cal. 126, 12 Am. St. Rep. 29, 20 Pac. 382, 17 Mor. Min. Rep. 169 (same); Feeney v. Howard (1889) 79 Cal. 525, 4 L.R.A. 826, 12 Am. St. Rep. 162, 21 Pac. 984; Holton v. Noble

statements of opinion, hopes, or expectations, on which the party to (1890) 83 Cal. 7, 23 Pac. 58; Jefferson v. Hewitt (1892) 95 Cal. 535, 30 Pac. 772; Russ Lumber & Mill Co. v. Muscupiabe Land & Water Co. (1898) 120 Cal. 521, 65 Am. St. Rep. 186, 52 Pac. 995; Henry v. Continental Bldg. & L. Asso. (1909) 156 Cal. 667, 105 Pac. 960; Rheingans v. Smith (1911) 161 Cal. 362, 119 Pac. 494, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1140; Ayers v. Southern P. R. Co. (1916) 173 Cal. 74, L.R.A.1917F, 949, 159 Pac. 144; Wegerer v. Jordan (1909) 10 Cal. App. 362, 101 Pac. 1066; Neff v. Mattern (1915) 28 Cal. App. 99, 151 Pac. 382; Locomobile Co. v. Belasco (1916) 32 Cal. App. 329, 162 Pac. 920; Hickman v. Johnson (1918) 36 Cal. App. 342, 178 Pac. 145; Holiday v. Tolosano (1918) 39 Cal. App. 151, 178 Pac. 170; Beeman v. Richardson (1920) · Cal. App. 189 Pac. 790, opinion superseded in (1921) 185 Cal. 280, 196 Pac. 774; Wolleson v. Coburn (1923) 63 Cal. App. 315, 218 Pac. 479; Beckley v. Archer (1925) 74 Cal. App. 598, 241 Pac. 422; California Credit & C. Corp. v. Goodin (1926) Cal. App. -, 246 Pac. 121 (recognizing rule); California Credit & C. Corp. v. Carpenter (1926) Cal. App., 246 Pac. 126 (same). Colorado. Adams V. Schiffer (1887) 11 Colo. 15, 7 Am. St. Rep. 202, 17 Pac. 21; Farris v. Strong (1897) 24 Colo. 107, 48 Pac. 963; Central Life Assur. Soc. v. Mulford (1909) 45 Colo. 240, 100 Pac. 423; Kilpatrick v. Inman (1909) 46 Colo. 514, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 188, 105 Pac. 1080; People v. Orris (1912) 52 Colo. 244, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 170, 121 Pac. 164; Hart v. Zaitz (1922) 72 Colo. 315, 211 Pac. 391; Intermountain Lumber Co. v. Radetsky (1924) 75 Colo. 570, 33 A.L.R. 844, 227 Pac. 564 (dictum); International Harvester Co. v. Edwards (1925) 76 Colo. 531, 233 Pac. 164; Erisman v. McCarty (1925) 77 Colo. 289, 236 Pac. 777; Beard v. Bliley (1893) 3 Colo. App. 479, 34 Pac. 271; Creighton v. Campbell (1915) 27 Colo. App. 120, 149 Pac. 448, reversed on other grounds in (1917) 63 Colo. 478, 167 Pac. 975. Connecticut. Kennedy v. Howell (1850) 20 Conn. 349; Argall v. Cook (1875) 43 Conn. 160; Barnes v. Starr (1894) 64 Conn. 136, 28 Atl. 980; Sallies v. Johnson (1911) 85 Conn. 77, 81 Atl. 974, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 386; Moran v. Holmes Mfg. Co. (1923) 99 Conn. 180, 121 Atl. 346.

District of Columbia. Jackson & S. Co. v. Fay (1902) 20 App. D. C. 105 (recognizing rule).

Florida. Harrington v. Rutherford (1896) 38 Fla. 321, 21 So. 283; Stackpole v. Hancock (1898) 40 Fla. 362, 45 L.R.A. 814, 24 So. 914; Allen v. United Zinc Co. (1912) 64 Fla. 171, 60 So. 182; Huffstetler v. Our Home L. Ins. Co. (1914) 67 Fla. 324, 65 So. 1; Hart v. Marbury (1921) 82 Fla. 317, 90 So. 173; Smith v. Hollingsworth (1923) 85 Fla. 431, 96 So. 394. See also Riverside Invest. Co. v. Gibson (1914) 67 Fla. 130, 64 So. 439.

Georgia.

Dyar v. Walton (1887) 79 Ga. 466, 7 S. E. 220; Weston v. Columbus Southern R. Co. (1892) 90 Ga. 289, 15 S. E. 773; Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Warthen (1896) 98 Ga. 599, 25 S. E. 988; Chicago Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Summerour (1897) 101 Ga. 820, 29 S. E. 291; Smith v. Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. (1908) 131 Ga. 470, 62 S. E. 673; Atlanta Skirt Mfg. Co. v. Jacobs (1910) 8 Ga. App. 299, 68 S. E. 1077 (recognizing rule); Thomson v. McLaughlin (1913) 13 Ga. App. 334, 79 S. E. 182; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Anderson (1913) 13 Ga. App. 772, 80 S. E. 32; Murphy v. Rugely (1919) 24 Ga. App. 262, 100 S. E. 729; Brooks v. Pitts (1919) 24 Ga. App. 386, 100 S. E. 776; Macon Union Co-op. Asso. v. Chance (1924) 31 Ga. App. 636, 122 S. E. 66; Shafer v. Carson (1925) 33 Ga. App. 418, 126 S. E. 735; Stephens v. Milikin (1926) 35 Ga. App. 287, 133 S. E. 67. See also Bell v. Americus, P. & L. R. Co. (1886) 76 Ga. 754.

Illinois. Miller v. Howell (1838) 2 Ill. 499, 32 Am. Dec. 36; Fish v. Cleland (1864) 33 Ill. 238; Gage v. Lewis (1873) 68 Ill. 604; Tuck v. Dowing (1875) 76 Ill. 71, 7 Mor. Min. Rep. 83; Gray v. Suspension Car Truck Mfg. Co. (1889) 127 Ill. 187, 19 N. Ě. 874; People ex rel. Ellis v. Healy (1889) 128 Ill. 9, 15 Am. St. Rep. 90, 20 N. E. 692; Winget v. Quincy Bldg.

future event cannot, in the very nature of the case, be false when made.

& Homestead Co. (1889) 128 Ill. 67, 21 N. E. 12; Kitson v. Farwell (1895) 132 Ill. 327, 23 N. E. 1024; Haenni v. Bleisch (1893) 146 Ill. 262, 34 N. E. 153; Mumford v. Tolman (1895) 157 Ill. 258, 41 N. E. 617; Brady v. Cole (1896) 164 Ill. 116, 45 N. E. 438; Crocker v. Manley (1896) 164 Ill. 282, 156 Am. St. Rep. 196, 45 N. E. 577, 18 Mor. Min. Rep. 485; Murphy v. Murphy (1901) 189 Ill. 360, 59 N. E. 796; Day v. Ft. Scott Invest. & Improv. Co. (1894) 153 Ill. 293, 38 N. E. 567; Burwash v. Ballou (1907) 230 Ill. 34, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 409, 82 N. E. 355; Miller v. Sutliff (1909) 241 Ill. 521, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 735, 89 N. E. 651; Grubb v. Milan (1911) 249 Ill. 456, 94 N. E. 927; Keithley v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. (1916) 271 Ill. 584, 111 N. E. 503; Luttrell v. Wyatt (1922) 305 Ill. 274, 137 N. E. 95; American Ins. Co. v. Crawford (1880) 7 Ill. App. 29; Knight v. Gaultney (1887) 23 Ill. App. 376; Casselberry v. Warren (1890) 40 Ill. App. 626; Murray v. Smith (1891) 42 Ill. App. 548; Musick v. Gatzmeyer (1893) 47 Ill. App. 329; Phelan v. Kuhn (1893) 51 Ill. App. 644; Emmerson v. Hutchinson (1896) 63 Ill. App. 203; Potter v. Potter (1896) 65 Ill. App. 74; Stockham v. Adams (1900) 96 Ill. App. 152; Dickinson v. Atkins (1902) 100 Ill. App. 401; McConnell v. Pierce (1904) 116 Ill. App. 103; Eckman v. Webb (1904) 116 Ill. App. 467; Love v. McElroy (1905) 118 Ill. App. 412; Weigand v. Cannon (1905) 118 Ill. App. 635; Krieger v. Krieger (1905) 120 Ill. App. 634, reversed on other grounds in (1906) 221 Ill. 479, 77 N. E. 909; Chambers v. Mitchell (1905) 123 Ill. App. 595; Press v. Hair (1907) 133 Ill. App. 528; White v. Moran (1907) 134 Ill. App. 480; Smith v. Hopping (1910) 158 Ill. App. 439 (recognizing rule); Koehler v. Glaum (1912) 169 Ill. App. 537; Buyers Index Pub. Co. v. American Shoe Polish Co. (1912) 169 Ill. App. 618; Van Sickle v. Harmeyer (1912) 172 Ill. App. 218; Shamberg v. Stearns (1913) 178 Ill. App. 587; Buresh v. Seymour (1914) 187 Ill. App. 295; Ensign v. Lehmann (1915) 192 Ill. App. 578; Jones v. Parker (1916) 197 Ill. App. 338; De Salvo v. Anderson (1916) 200 Ill. App. 29; Meixner v. Western Live Stock Ins. Co. (1916) 203 Ill. App. 523; Ingersoll v. Joseph Brown & Co. (1917) 205 Ill. App. 537. See also Perry v. McHenry

In contracts of sale, promises or statements are frequently of that category (1851) 13 Ill. 227 (parol promise not such fraud as to raise a trust); Commercial Mut. Acci. Co. v. Bates (1898) 176 Ill. 194, 52 N. E. 49; Zalapi v. Holcomb & H. Mfg. Co. (1926) 241 Ill. App. 102.

Indiana. Clem v. Newcastle & D. R. Co. (1857) 9 Ind. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 653; New Albany & S. R. Co. v. Fields (1858) 10 Ind. 187; Evansville, I. & C. S. L. R. Co. v. Posey (1859) 12 Ind. 363; Eakright v. Logansport & N. I. R. Co. (1859) 13 Ind. 404; Carlisle v. Evansville, I. & C. S. L. R. Co. (1859) 13 Ind. 477; Vawter v. Ohio & M. R. Co. (1860) 14 Ind. 174; Hardy v. Merriweather (1860) 14 Ind. 203; McAllister v. Indianapolis & C. R. Co. (1860) 15 Ind. 11; Bish v. Bradford (1861) 17 Ind. 490; Brownlee v. Ohio, I. & I. R. Co. (1862) 18 Ind. 68; Jenkins v. Long (1862) 19 Ind. 28, 81 Am. Dec. 374; Parker v. Thomas (1862) 19 Ind. 213, 81 Am. Dec. 385; Richter v. Irwin (1867) 28 Ind. 26; Sieveking v. Litzler (1869) 31 Ind. 13; Beaver v. Hartsville University (1870) 34 Ind. 245; Fouty v. Fouty (1870) 34 Ind. 433; Hartsville University v. Hamilton (1870) 34 Ind. 506; Noble v. State (1872) 39 Ind. 352; State ex rel. Wayne Twp. v. Prather (1873) 44 Ind. 287; Adkins v. Adkins (1874) 48 Ind. 12; Jagers v. Jagers (1875) 49 Ind. 428; Hayes v. Burkam (1875) 51 Ind. 130; Miller v. Wild Cat Gravel Road Co. (1877) 57 Ind. 241; Reagan v. Hadley (1877) 57 Ind. 509 (recognizing rule); Welshbillig v. Dienhart (1878) 65 Ind. 94; Burt v. Bowles (1879) 69 Ind. 1; Bethell v. Bethell (1884) 92 Ind. 318; Vogel v. Demorest (1884) 97 Ind. 440; Bennett v. McIntire (1889) 121 Ind. 231, 6 L.R.A. 736, 23 N. E. 78; Conant v. National State Bank (1889) 121 Ind. 323, 22 N. E. 250; Balue v. Taylor (1894) 136 Ind. 368, 36 N. E. 269 (recognizing rule); Robinson v. Reinhart (1898) 137 Ind. 674, 36 N. E. 519 (same); Smith v. Parker (1897) 148 Ind. 127, 45 N. E. 770; Basye v. Basye (1899) 152 Ind. 172, 52 N. E. 797 (recognizing rule); Kain v. Rinker (1891) 1 Ind. App. 86, 27 N. E. 328; State ex rel. Creighton v. Carlisle (1899) 21 Ind. App. 438, 52 N. E. 711; Ayres v. Blevins (1901) 28 Ind. App. 101, 62 N. E. 305; Wabash R. Co. v. Grate (1913) 53 Ind. App. 583, 102 N. E. 155; Voorhees v. Cragun (1916) 61 Ind. App. 690, 112 N. E. 826 (recognizing rule);

known as "dealer's talk," which the buyer, in view of the relation of the Godwin v. De Motte (1917) 64 Ind. App. 394, 116 N. E. 17 (same); Records v. Smith (1920) 72 Ind. App. 618, 126 N. E. 335; Richardson v. Crouch (1921) 76 Ind. App. 23, 129 N. E. 327; Spielman v. Herskovitz (1922) 78 Ind. App. 131, 134 N. E. 909; Webster v. Adams (1923) 79 Ind. App. 261, 137 N. E. 883 (recognizing rule); Tribune Co. v. Red Ball Transit Co. (1926) 84 Ind. App. 666, 151 N. E. 338, rehearing denied in (1926) 84 Ind. App. 672, 151 N. E. 836. See also Fox v. Allensville, C. S. & V. Turnp. Co. (1874) 46 Ind. 31; Caylor v. Roe (1884) 99 Ind. 1; Shick V. Citizens' Enterprise. Co. (1895) 15 Ind. App. 329, 57 Am. St. Rep. 230, 44 N. E. 49.

Iowa. Bondurant v. Crawford (1867) 22 Iowa, 40; Hazlett v. Burge (1867) 22 Iowa, 535; Van Vechten v. Smith (1882) 59 Iowa, 173, 13 N. W. 94; Goff v. Hawkeye Pump & W. M. Co. (1883) 62 Iowa, 691, 18 N. W. 307; Blair v. Buttolph (1887) 72 Iowa, 31, 33 N. W. 349; Scroggin v. Wood (1893) 87 Iowa, 497, 54 N. W. 437; Franklin Sugar Ref. Co. v. Collier (1893) 89 Iowa, 69, 56 N. W. 279; Davis v. Campbell (1895) 93 Iowa, 524, 61 N. W. 1053; Swan v. Mathre (1897) 103 Iowa, 261, 72 N. W. 522; Bayer v. Commercial Bldg. Invest. Co. (1900) 110 Iowa, 491, 81 N. W. 720; Re Harker (1901) 113 Iowa, 584, 85 N. W. 786; State Bank v. Gates (1901) 114 Iowa, 323, 86 N. W. 311; Baldwin v. Moser (1909) - Iowa, 123 N. W. 989; State Bank v. Mentzer (1904) 125 Iowa, 101, 100 N. W. 69; Blaul v. Wandel (1908) 137 Iowa, 306, 114 N. W. 899; City Deposit Bank v. Green (1908) 138 Iowa, 156, 115 N. W. 893; State Bank v. Brown (1909) 142 Iowa, 190, 134 Am. St. Rep. 412, 119 N. W. 81; Kelty v. McPeake (1909) 143 Iowa, 567, 121 N. W. 529; Stewart v. Puck Soup Co. (1912) 154 Iowa, 411, 135 N. W. 70; First Nat. Bank v. Fulton (1912) 156 Iowa, 734, 137 N. W. 1019; Gamet v. Haas (1914) 165 Iowa, 565, 146 N. W. 465; Depugh v. Frazier (1914) 167 Iowa, 742, 149 N. W. 854; Marquardt v. Bartlett (1916) 173 Iowa, 745, 155 N. W. 1014; Seymour v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1917) 181 Iowa, 218, 164 N. W. 352; Sherman v. Smith (1918) 185 Iowa, 654, 169 N. W. 216; Lynch v. Kerslake (1919) 186 Iowa, 983, 173 N. W. 147; Peterson v. McManus (1919) 187 Iowa, 522, 172 N.

parties, usually discounts or relies on only after independent investigation. W. 460; Hogan v. McCombs Bros. (1921) 190 Iowa, 650, 180 N. W. 770; Smith v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. R. Co. (1921) 191 Iowa, 668, 182 N. W. 890; City Nat. Bank v. Mason (1922) 192 Iowa, 1048, 186 N. W. 30; Security Sav. Bank v. Capp (1922) 193 Iowa, 278, 186 N. W. 927; Klemm v. Weil (1922) 194 Iowa, 1073, 190 N. W. 388; Anderson Sav. Bank v. Hopkins (1923) 195 Iowa, 655, 192 N. W. 824; Smith v. Breeding (1923) 196 Iowa, 670, 195 N. W. 208; Schwitters v. Des Moines Commercial College (1925) 199 Iowa, 1058, 203 N. W. 265; Faust v. Parker (1927) Iowa, 213 N. W. 794. See also Haigh v. White Way Laundry Co. (1914) 164 Iowa, 143, 50 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1091, 145 N. W. 473; Stout v. Stout (1914) 165 Iowa, 552, L.R.A.1915A, 711, 146 N. W. 474. Kansas. Kiser v. Richardson (1914) 91 Kan. 812, 139 Pac. 373, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 539; Stevens v. Inch (1916) 98 Kan. 306, 158 Pac. 43; Slatten v. Konrath (1895) 1 Kan. App. 636, 42 Pac. 399; Federal Agency Invest. Co. v. Holm (1927) 123 Kan. 82, 254 Pac. 391; Wm. B. Grimes Dry Goods Co. v. Jordan (1898) 7 Kan. App. 192, 53 Pac. 186. See also Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Crittenden (1896) 4 Kan. App. 512, 44 Pac. 1000.

Kentucky. Chambers v. Baptist Educational Soc. (1841) 1 B. Mon. 215; Livermore v. Middlesborough Town Lands Co. (1899) 106 Ky. 140, 50 S. W. 6; Ryan v. Middlesborough Towns (1895) 106 Ky. 181, 52 S. W. 33; Jones v. Middlesborough Town Lands Co. (1899) 106 Ky. 194, 50 S. W. 28; Decatur Mineral & Land Co. v. Friedman (1900) 108 Ky. 189, 56 S. W. 11; Vokes v. Eaton (1905) 119 Ky. 913, 85 S. W. 174; Smith v. Corbin (1909) 135 Ky. 727, 123 S. W. 277; Southern Ins. Co. v. Milligan (1913) 154 Ky. 216, 157 S. W. 37; Castleman-Blakemore Co. v. Brucker (1915) 167 Ky. 269, 180 S. W. 360; Daniel v. Daniel (1921) 190 Ky. 210, 226 S. W. 1070 (recognizing rule); Merchants Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Forsythe (1923) 198 Ky. 334, 248 S. W. 869; Ramsey v. Reynierson (1923) 200 Ky. 624, 255 S. W. 274; Engemann v. Allen (1923) 201 Ky. 483, 257 S. W. 25; Electric Hammer Corp. v. Deddens (1924) 206 Ky. 232, 267 S. W. 207; Head v. Dant (1893) 14 Ky. L. Rep. 742, 21 S. W. 528; Huls v. Black (1893) 14 Ky. L. Rep. 805; Pine

It is often difficult to determine in the cases which lay down this general Mountain Iron & Coal Co. v. Ford (1899) 21 Ky. L. Rep. 142, 50 S. W. 27. See also Wight v. Shelby R. Co. (1855) 16 B. Mon. 4, 63 Am. Dec. 522; Clark v. Tanner (1896) 100 Ky. 275, 38 S. W. 11.

Maine. Long v. Woodman (1870) 58 Me. 49; Bishop v. Small (1874) 63 Me. 12; Davis v. Reynolds (1910) 107 Me. 61, 77 Atl. 409; Carter v. Orne (1914) 112 Me. 365, 92 Atl. 289; Judkins v. Chase (1922) 121 Me. 230, 116 Atl. 582; Albee v. La Roux (1923) 122 Me. 273, 119 Atl. 626; Kennebec Housing Co. v. Barton (1923) 123 Me. 293, 122 Atl. 852. See also Hotchkiss v. Bon Air Coal & I. Co. (1911) 108 Me. 34, 78 Atl. 1108.

Maryland. Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co. (1870) 34 Md. 316; Lamm v. Port Deposit Homestead Asso. (1878) 49 Md. 233, 33 Am. Rep. 246; Buschmann v. Codd (1879) 52 Md. 202; Robertson v. Parks (1892) 76 Md. 118, 24 Atl. 411; Boulden v. Stilwell (1905) 100 Md. 543, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 258, 60 Atl. 609; Donnelly v. Baltimore Trust & G. Co. (1905) 102 Md. 1, 61 Atl. 301; Bucher Federal Baseball Club (1917) 130 Md. 635, 101 Atl. 534; Schnader v. Brooks (1926) 150 Md. 52, 132 Atl. 381 (recognizing rule). See also Gittings v. Von Dorn (1920) 136 Md. 10, 109 Atl. 553 (dictum).

V.

Massachusetts. Boyd v. Stone (1814) 11 Mass. 342; Pedrick v. Porter (1862) 5 Allen, 324; Pike v. Fay (1869) 101 Mass. 134; Mooney v. Miller (1869) 102 Mass. 217; Com. v. Mechanics' Mut. F. Ins. Co. (1876) 120 Mass. 495; Knowlton v. Keenan (1888) 146 Mass. 86, 4 Am. St. Rep. 282, 15 N. E. 127; Dawe v. Morris (1889) 149 Mass. 188, 4 L.R.A. 158, 14 Am. St. Rep. 404, 21 N. E. 313; Lynch v. Murphy (1898) 171 Mass. 307, 50 N. E. 623; People's Sav. Bank v. James (1901) 178 Mass. 322, 59 N. E. 807; McComb v. C. R. Brewer Lumber Co. (1903) 184 Mass. 276, 68 N. E. 222; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Spring Water Carbonating Co. (1911) 207 Mass. 488, 93 N. E. 801; Federal Coal & Coke Co. v. Coryell (1916) 223 Mass. 430, 111 N. E. 1041; Brown v. C. A. Pierce & Co. (1918) 229 Mass. 44, 118 N. E. 266; Boston Consol. Gas Co. v. Folsom (1921) 237 Mass. 565, 130 N. E. 197; Wellington v. Rugg (1922) 243 Mass. 30, 136 N. E. 831; Morrison v. Tremont Trust Co. (1925) 252 Mass.

rule, whether the promise was made in good faith and whether a belief was 383, 147 N. E. 870; Lough v. Central Trust Co. (1927) — Mass. —, 154 N. E. 583. See also Lynch v. Palmer (1921) 237 Mass. 150, 33 A.L.R. 842, 129 N. E. 374 (rule assumed).

Michigan. Kulenkamp v. Groff (1888) 71 Mich. 675, 1 L.R.A. 594, 15 Am. St. Rep. 283, 40 N. W. 57; Black v. Miller (1889) 75 Mich. 323, 42 N. W. 837; Hubbard v. Long (1895) 105 Mich. 442, 63 N. W. 644; Myers v. Alpena Loan & Bldg. Asso. (1898) 117 Mich. 389, 75 N. W. 944; Crowley v. Langdon (1901) 127 Mich. 51, 86 N. W. 391; Macklem v. Fales (1902) 130 Mich. 66, 89 N. W. 581; Irwin v. Wolcott (1914) 183 Mich. 92, 149 N. W. 1035; Warren v. Federal L. Ins. Co. (1917) 198 Mich. 342, 164 N. W. 449; Boston Piano & Music Co. v. Pontiac Clothing Co. (1917) 199 Mich. 141, 165 N. W. 856; Kulesza v. Wyhowski (1921) 213 Mich. 189, 182 N. W. 53; Brender v. Stratton (1921) 216 Mich. 166, 22 A.L.R. 728, 184 N. W. 486; Kefuss v. Whitely (1922) 220 Mich. 67, 189 N. W. 76 (recognizing rule); Seelye & Brown v. Journal Co. (1923) 224 Mich. 481, 195 N. W. 69; J. B. Colt Co. v. Cousino (1924) 226 Mich. 518, 198 N. W. 222; Night Commander Lighting Co. v. Michelsen (1924) 226 Mich. 668, 198 N. W. 188 (recognizing rule); Matteson v. Weaver (1924) 229 Mich. 495, 201 N. W. 473; Funk v. Engel (1926) 235 Mich. 195, 209 N. W. 160; Pontiac Nursery Co. v. Miller (1926) 236 Mich. 511, 211 N. W. 263. See also Truman v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. (1912) 169 Mich. 153, 135 N. W. 89.

Minnesota. Hone v. Woodruff (1858) 1 Minn. 418, Gil. 303; Albitz v. Minneapolis & P. R. Co. (1889) 40 Minn. 476, 42 N. W. 394; Columbia Electric Co. v. Dixon (1891) 46 Minn. 463, 49 N. W. 244; Bay View Land Co. v. Myers (1895) 62 Minn. 265, 64 N. W. 816; Hodsden v. Hodsden (1897) 69 Minn. 486, 72 N. W. 562; McElrath v. Electric Invest. Co. (1911) 114 Minn. 358, 131 N. W. 380; Schaeffer v. Rush (1912) 118 Minn. 174, 136 N. W. 754 (recognizing rule); Cox v. Edwards (1913) 120 Minn. 512, 139 N. W. 1070 (same); Bigelow V. Barnes (1913) 121 Minn. 148, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 203, 140 N. W. 1032; Thorpe v. Cooley (1917) 138 Minn. 431, 165 N. W. 265; Arcade Invest. Co. v. Hawley (1917) 139 Minn. 27, 165 N. W. 477 (recog