honestly entertained that the future event would in fact take place; and the nizing rule); Nelson v. Berkner (1918) 139 Minn. 301, 166 N. W. 347; Hansen v. Daniel Hayes Co. (1922) 152 Minn. 222, 188 N. W. 317; Guy T. Bisbee Co. v. Granite City Invest. Corp. (1924) 159 Minn. 238, 199 N. W. 14; Roman v. Lorence (1925) 162 Minn. 198, 202 N. W. 707; Smith v. Vosika (1925) 163 Minn. 12, 203 N. W. 428; Johnson v. Benham (1925) 163 Minn. 31, 203 N. W. 444. See also Nelson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1910) 111 Minn. 193, 126 N. W. 902, 20 Ann. Cas. 748; First Nat. Bank v. Marcelle (1923) 156 Minn. 151, 194 N. W. 858.

Mississippi.-Walker v. Mobile & O. R. Co. (1857) 34 Miss. 245; Saffold v. Barnes (1860) 39 Miss. 399. See also Selma, M. & M. R. Co. v. Anderson (1876) 51 Miss. 829.

Missouri.—McFarland v. Missouri P. R. Co. (1894) 125 Mo. 253, 28 S. W. 590; Estes v. Desnoyers Shoe Co. (1899) 155 Mo. 577, 56 S. W. 316; Anderson v. Gaines (1900) 156 Mo. 664, 57 S. W. 726; Younger v. Hoge (1908) 211 Mo. 444, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 94, 111 S. W. 20; Ray County Sav. Bank v. Hutton (1909) 224 Mo. 42, 123 S. W. 47; Stonemets v. Head (1913) 248 Mo. 243, 154 S. W. 108 (recognizing rule); Bryan v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (1922) 292 Mo. 535, 23 A.L.R. 537, 238 S. W. 484; Edwards v. French (1924) 304 Mo. 194, 263 S. W. 132; Metropolitan Paving Co. v. Brown-Crummer Invest. Co. (1925) 309 Mo. 638, 274 S. W. 815; Pickering v. Templeton (1876) 2 Mo. App. 424; Terry v. Charter Oak L. Ins. Co. (1877) 3 Mo. App. 595; New Lindell Hotel Co. v. Tiernan (1880) 8 Mo. App. 596; Bullock v. Wooldridge (1890) 42 Mo. App. 356; Saunders v. McClintock (1891) 46 Mo. App. 216; Brockhaus v. Schilling (1892) 52 Mo. App. 73; Davidson v. Hobson (1894) 59 Mo. App. 130; Morris v. McMahon (1890) 75 Mo. App. 494; Poindexter v. McDowell (1905) 110 Mo. App. 233, 84 S. W. 1133; Bretzfelder, B. & Co. v. Waddle (1907) 122 Mo. App. 462, 99 S. W. 806; Merchants Nat. Bank v. Brisch (1909) 140 Mo. App. 246, 124 S. W. 76; Mathews v. Eby (1910) 149 Mo. App. 157, 129 S. W. 1016, later appeal in (1912) 168 Mo. App. 134, 151 S. W. 470; Pile v. Bright (1911) 156 Mo. App. 301, 137 S. W. 1017; Muck v. Hayden (1913) 173 Mo. App. 27, 155 S. W. 889; Missouri Loan & Invest. Co. v. Federal Trust Co. (1913)

cases cannot be relied on with assurance on this phase of the question. It

175 Mo. App. 646, 158 S. W. 111; Luchow v. Kansas City Breweries Co. (1916) Mo. App. —, 183 S. W. 1123; People's Bank v. Baker (1917) Mo. App., 193 S. W. 632; Shoup v. Tanner-Buick Co. (1922) 211 Mo. App. 480, 245 S. W. 364. See also Horne v. John A. Hertel Co. (1914) 184 Mo. App. 725, 171 S. W. 598 (recognizing rule); Wendell v. Ozark Orchard Co. (1918) Mo. App. 200 S. W. 747 (holding rule inapplicable); Goar v. Belinder (1923) 213 Mo. App. 330, 249 S. W. 977 (recognizing rule).

1

Montana.-Ott v. Pace (1911) 43 Mont. 82, 115 Pac. 37; Buhler v. Loftus (1917) 53 Mont. 546, 165 Pac. 601 (recognizing rule); Citizens' State Bank v. Snelling (1919) 55 Mont. 476, 178 Pac. 744; Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. Anderson (1920) 58 Mont. 617, 194 Pac. 160; International Harvester Co. v. Merry (1921) 60 Mont. 498, 199 Pac. 704; McIntyre v. Dawes (1924) 71 Mont. 367, 229 Pac. 846 (recognizing rule).

Nebraska.-Perkins

V. Lougee

(1877) 6 Neb. 220; Markel v. Moudy (1881) 11 Neb. 213, 7 N. W. 853; Canon v. Farmers' Bank (1902) 3 Neb. (Unof.) 348, 91 N. W. 585; Crosby v. Ritchey (1896) 47 Neb. 924, 66 N. W. 1005; Cohn v. Broadhead (1897) 51 Neb. 834, 71 N. W. 747; Esterly Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Berg (1897) 52 Neb. 147, 71 N. W. 952; McCready v. Phillips (1898) 56 Neb. 446, 76 N. W. 885 (recognizing rule); Pollard v. McKenney (1903) 69 Neb. 742, 96 N. W. 679, 101 N. W. 9; Cerny v. Paxton & G. Co. (1907) 78 Neb. 134, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 640, 110 N. W. 882; Eisemann v. Anderson (1923) 110 Neb. 14, 192 N. W. 945. See also Foley v. Holtry (1894) 43 Neb. 133, 61 N. W. 120 (dictum); American Bldg. & L. Asso. v. Bear (1896) 48 Neb. 455, 67 N. W. 500; Farmers' Co-op. Grain Co. v. Startzer (1924) 112 Neb. 19, 198 N. W. 170 (recognizing rule).

New Hampshire.-Goodwin v. Horne (1881) 60 N. H. 485 (recognizing rule); Shattuck v. Robbins (1896) 68 N. H. 565, 44 Atl. 694; Spead v. Tomlinson (1904) 73 N. H. 46, 68 L.R.A. 432, 59 Atl. 376.

New Jersey.-Wintermute v. Swisher (1819) 5 N. J. L. 682; Crane v. Conklin (1831) 1 N. J. Eq. 346, 22 Am. Dec. 519; Arnold v. Hagerman (1888) 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 14 Am. St.

seems probable that in many of the cases supporting the rule there was in Rep. 712, 17 Atl. 93; Norfolk & N. B. Hosiery Co. v. Arnold (1892) 49 N. J. Eq. 390, 23 Atl. 514; Lovett v. Taylor (1896) 54 N. J. Eq. 311, 34 Atl. 896; Brown v. Honiss (1907) 74 N. J. L. 501, 68 Atl. 150; Lembeck v. Gerken (1914) 86 N. J. L. 111, 90 Atl. 1030, later appeal in (1915) 88 N. J. L. 329, 96 Atl. 577; Halpern v. Cafarelli (1922) 98 N. J. L. 77, 118 Atl. 684. New Mexico. Witt v. Cuenod

(1897) 9 N. M. 143, 50 Pac. 328. New York. Gallager v. Brunel (1826) 6 Cow. 346; Fisher v. New York Common Pleas (1836) 18 Wend. 608; Speiglemyer v. Crawford (1837) 6 Paige, 254 (recognizing rule); Rogers v. Salmon (1841) 8 Paige, 559, 35 Am. Dec. 725; Levy v. Brush (1871) 45 N. Y. 589; Wheeler v. Reynolds (1876) 66 N. Y. 227; Wilson v. Deen (1878) 74 N. Y. 531; Sparman v. Keim (1880) 83 N. Y. 245; Wood v. Rabe (1884) 96 N. Y. 414, 48 Am. Rep. 640 (recognizing rule); Kley v. Healy (1896) 149 N. Y. 346, 44 N. E. 93; Taylor v. Commercial Bank (1903) 174 N. Y. 181, 62 L.R.A. 783, 95 Am. St. Rep. 564, 66 N. E. 726; Adams v. Gillig (1910) 199 N. Y. 314, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 127, 92 N. E. 670, 20 Ann. Cas. 910 (assuming rule); Adams v. Clark (1925) 239 N. Y. 403, 146 N. E. 642; Palmer v. Smedley (1859) 18 How. Pr. 321; Farrington v. Bullard (1863) 40 Barb. 512; Gray v. Palmer (1864) 2 Robt. 500, affirmed without opinion in (1869) 41 N. Y. 620; Holdredge v. Webb (1872) 64 Barb. 9; Lexow v. Julian (1880) 21 Hun. 577, affirmed without opinion in (1881) 86 N. Y. 638; Rose v. Dietsch (1886) 24 N. Y. Week. Dig. 162; Hatch v. Spooner (1891) 37 N. Y. S. R. 151, 13 N. Y. Supp. 642; Societa Italiana Di Beneficena v. Sulzer (1892) 29 Jones & S. 325, 19 N. Y. Supp. 824, appeal dismissed in (1893) 138 N. Y. 468, 34 N. E. 193; Flour City Nat. Bank v. Grover (1895) 88 Hun, 4, 34 N. Y. Supp. 496; Seaman v. Becar (1896) 15 Misc. 616, 38 N. Y. Supp. 69; Lynch v. Sauer (1896) 16 Misc. 1, 37 N. Y. Supp. 666; Wheeler v. Mowers (1896) 16 Misc. 143, 38 N. Y. Supp. 950; Construction Reporter Co. v. Crowninshield (1896) 16 Misc. 381, 38 N. Y. Supp. 72; Closius v. Reiners (1897) 13 App. Div. 163, 43 N. Y. Supp. 297; Stumpf v. Sargent (1897) 21 Misc. 674, 47 N. Y. Supp. 1086; Quis v. Halloran (1902) 74 App.

fact no actual fraudulent intent. But, on the other hand, some of the cases Div. 621, 77 N. Y. Supp. 196; Henry W. Boettger Silk Finishing Co. v. Electrical Audit & Rebate Co. (1909) 115 N. Y. Supp. 1102; Kreshover v. Berger (1902) 62 Misc. 613, 116 N. Y. Supp. 20, reversed on other grounds in (1909) 135 App. Div. 27, 119 N. Y. Supp. 737; Herlihy v. Blokus (1911) 131 N. Y. Supp. 623; Lerner v. Roth (1912) 136 N. Y. Supp. 61; Wilson v. Meyer (1912) 154 App. Div. 300, 138 N. Y. Supp. 1048; Ball v. Gerard (1914) 160 App. Div. 619, 146 N. Y. Supp. 81, affirmed without opinion in (1907) 221 N. Y. 665, 117 N. E. 1060; Klebold Press v. Elmore (1915) 150 N. Y. Supp. 978; Meritas Realty Co. v. Farley (1915) 166 App. Div. 420, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1052, affirmed without opinion in (1918) 224 N. Y. 671, 121 N. E. 879; Mecum v. Mooyer (1915) 166 App. Div. 793, 152 N. Y. Supp. 385; Gotteberg v. Park Terrace Co. (1915) 168 App. Div. 800, 154 N. Y. Supp. 387, affirmed without opinion in (1917) 222 N. Y. 600, 118 N. E. 1060; Hone v. Burr (1915) 91 Misc. 520, 155 N. Y. Supp. 377; McAvoy v. Maxwell (1916) 158 N. Y. Supp. 844; Reiss v. Levy (1916) 175 App. Div. 938, 161 N. Y. Supp. 1048; Magee v. Fish (1916) 175 App. Div. 125, 161 N. Y. Supp. 1057; Ritzwoller v. Lurie (1916) 176 App. Div. 100, 162 N. Y. Supp. 475; Field v. Seubert Bearing Co. (1917) 179 App. Div. 780, 167 N. Y. Supp. 294; Huott v. Wood (1917) 180 App. Div. 484, 167 N. Y. Supp. 754 (rule assumed); Stoltz v. Reynolds (1918) 169 N. Y. Supp. 170; Wilford Hall Laboratories v. Leonard B. Shoenfeld & Co. (1918) 182 App. Div. 504, 169 N. Y. Supp. 912; Oliver Typewriter Co. v. Eastman Pub. Co. (1918) 169 N. Y. Supp. 1029; Beckermeister v. Beckermeister (1918) 170 N. Y. Supp. 22; Barbrick v. Carrero (1918) 184 App. Div. 160, 171 N. Y. Supp. 447; Wickwire v. Warner (1919) 174 N. Y. Supp. 811, affirmed in (1920) 191 App. Div. 835, 182 N. Y. Supp. 165, reargument denied in (1920) 193 App. Div. 926, 184 N. Y. Supp. 957, which is affirmed without opinion in (1922) 233 N. Y. 572, 135 N. E. 923; Polscik v. Korff (1920) 180 N. Y. Supp. 401; Eichorn v. Serlis & Co. (1922) 118 Misc. 256, 192 N. Y. Supp. 797 (recognizing rule); John N. Benedict Co. v. McKeage (1922) 201 App. Div. 161, 195 N. Y. Supp. 228; Fowler-Curtis Co. v.

doubtless support the view that, even though the person making the repre

Dean (1922) 203 App. Div. 317, 196 N. Y. Supp. 750; Trieper v. Bulkley & H. Co. (1922) 119 Misc. 597, 197 N. Y. Supp. 88; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Cooley (1923) 206 App. Div. 67, 200 N. Y. Supp. 393; Hobaica v. Byrne (1924) 123 Misc. 107, 205 N. Y. Supp. 7, later proceedings in (1926) 216 App. Div. 307, 214 N. Y. Supp. 759; Crossways Apartments Corp. v. Amante (1925) 213 App. Div. 430, 210 N. Y. Supp. 346. See also Grocers' Bank v. Murphy (1881) 9 Daly, 510.

North Carolina. Hill v. Gettys (1904) 135 N. C. 377, 47 S. E. 449 (recognizing rule); Troxler v. New Era Bldg. Co. (1904) 137 N. C. 51, 49 S. E. 58 (same); National Cash Register Co. v. Townsend (1905) 137 N. C. 652, 70 L.R.A. 349, 50 S. E. 306; Braddy v. Elliott (1908) 146 N. C. 578, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1121, 125 Am. St. Rep. 523, 60 S. E. 507; Williamson v. Holt (1908) 147 N. C. 515, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 240, 61 S. E. 384; Whitehurst v. Life Ins. Co. (1908) 149 N. C. 273, 62 S. E. 1067 (recognizing rule); Pritchard v. Dailey (1915) 168 N. C. 330, 84 S. E. 392; Planters Bank & T. Co. v. Yelverton (1923) 185 N. C. 314, 117 S. E. 299 (recognizing rule); Erskine v. Chevrolet Motors Co. (1923) 185 N. C. 479, 32 A.L.R. 196, 117 S. E. 706 (same); Potter v. Miller (1926) 191 N. C. 814, 133 S. E. 193.

North Dakota. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon (1904) 13 N. D. 516, 101 N. W. 903; First State Bank v. Kelly (1915) 30 N. D. 84, 152 N. W. 125, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1044; Bank of Valley City V. Lee (1919) 43 N. D. 503, 175 N. W. 575; Citizens State Bank v. Skeffington (1924) 50 N. D. 494, 196 N. W. 953.

Ohio. Armstrong v. Karshner (1890) 47 Ohio St. 276, 24 N. E. 897; Smith v. Bowler (1857) 1 Disney, 520, affirmed in (1858) 2 Disney, 153; Belmont Min. Co. v. Rogers (1895) 10 Ohio C. C. 305, 6 Ohio C. D. 619; American Hosiery Co. v. Baker (1899) 18 Ohio C. C. 604, 10 Ohio C. D. 219; Second Nat. Bank v. McDonald (1913) 21 Ohio C. C. N. S. 245; Donnell v. Continental Sugar Co. (1914) 16 Ohio N. P. N. S. 331. See also Cleveland v. Herron (1921) 102 Ohio St. 218, 131 N. E. 489. Oklahoma. v. Rhodes (1907) 19 Okla. 21, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 490, 91 Pac. 1119; Blackburn v. Morrison (1910) 29 Okla. 510, 118

Guthrie & W. R. Co.

sentations as to a future event may have entertained doubts regarding the

Pac. 402, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 523; Hazlett v. Wilkin (1914) 42 Okla. 20, 140 Pac. 410; Lusk v. White (1916) 58 Okla. 773, 161 Pac. 541; McLean v. Southwestern Casualty Ins. Co. (1916) 61 Okla. 79, 159 Pac. 660 (recognizing rule); Clift v. Hart (1916) 61 Okla. 233, 160 Pac. 912; Limerick v. Jefferson L. Ins. Co. (1918) 67 Okla. 178, 169 Pac. 1080; Rogers v. Harris (1919) 76 Okla. 215, 184 Pac. 459; Davis v. Higgins (1923) 95 Okla. 32, 217 Pac. 193; Rock v. Fisher (1925) 115 Okla. 53, 241 Pac. 496; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Perkins (1925) 115 Okla. 233, 242 Pac. 535. See also Coley v. Dore (1916) 56 Okla. 443, 156 Pac. 164.

Oregon. Haney V. Parkison (1914) 72 Or. 249, 143 Pac. 926, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 1035; Marshall v. Hillsboro Garden Tracts (1915) 78 Or. 89, 152 Pac. 493; Henrickson v. Hillsboro Garden Tracts (1915) 78 Or. 96, 152 Pac. 495; Fleming v. Gerlinger Motor Car Co. (1917) 86 Or. 195, 159 Pac. 1153, 168 Pac. 289; Smith v. Boothe (1918) 90 Or. 375, 175 Pac. 709, 176 Pac. 793; J. C. Corbin Co. v. Preston (1923) 109 Or. 230, 212 Pac. 541, 218 Pac. 917; Dolph v. Lennon (1923) 109 Or. 336, 220 Pac. 161; Bell v. Spain (1924) 110 Or. 114, 222 Pac. 322, 223 Pac. 235; Smith v. Johns (1925) 113 Or. 351, 232 Pac. 786. See also Ward v. Jenson (1918) 87 Or. 314, 170 Pac. 538 (recognizing rule).

Pennsylvania.-Com. use of Mishey v. Brenneman (1829) 1 Rawle, 311; Crossman v. Penrose Ferry Bridge Co. (1856) 26 Pa. 69; Fulton v. Hood (1859) 34 Pa. 365, 75 Am. Dec. 664; Coil v. Pittsburgh Female College (1861) 40 Pa. 439; Grove v. Hodges (1867) 55 Pa. 504, 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 698; Creveling's Appeal (1883) 3 Walk. 380; Taylor v. Saurman (1885) 110 Pa. 3, 1 Atl. 40 (recognizing rule); Guarantee & Collection Co. v. Mayer (1891) 141 Pa. 511, 21 Atl. 665; Ziegler v. McFarland (1892) 147 Pa. 607, 23 Atl. 1045; Fuller v. Law (1903) 207 Pa. 101, 56 Atl. 333; Marles Carved Moulding Co. v. Stulb (1906) 215 Pa. 91, 64 Atl. 431; Lowry Nat. Bank v. Hazard (1909) 223 Pa. 520, 72 Atl. 889; Homewood People's Bank v. Simon (1924) 279 Pa. 118, 123 Atl. 726; First Nat. Bank v. Sagerson (1925) 283 Pa. 406, 129 Atl. 333; Acetylene Light, Heat & P. Co. v. Beck

occurrence of that event, and may have made the statement recklessly

(1898) 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 584; Martachowski v. Orawitz (1900) 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 175 (recognizing rule); Philadelphia & G. S. S. Co. v. Pechin (1914) 23 Pa. Dist. R. 518, affirmed in (1915) 61 Pa. Super. Ct. 401; Devers v. Sollenberger (1904) 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 64; Miller v. Fulmer (1904) 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 106; Murphey v. Greybill (1907) 34 Pa. Super. Ct. 339; Philadelphia Motor Speedway Asso. v. Murphy (1919) 71 Pa. Super. Ct. 451; Murphy v. Pinney (1926) 86 Pa. Super. Ct. 458. South Carolina. Johnston v. La Motte (1853) 27 S. C. Eq. (6 Rich.) 347 (recognizing rule); Holmes v. Caldwell (1857) 44 S. C. L. (10 Rich.) 311; Caldwell v. Duncan (1910) 87 S. C. 331, 69 S. E. 660; Mobley v. Quattlebaum (1915) 101 S. C. 221, 85 S. E. 585; Livingston v. Reid-Hart Parr Co. (1921) 117 S. C. 391, 109 S. E. 106; Steele v. Singletary (1922) 120 S. C. 132, 110 S. E. 833; Steele v. Coleman (1922) 120 S. C. 158, 110 S. E. 836; Coleman v. Stevens (1922) 124 S. C. 8, 117 S. E. 305.

South Dakota. Western Townsite Co. v. Novotry (1913) 32 S. D. 565, 143 N. W. 895; Doyon v. Fogleson (1923) 46 S. D. 290, 192 N. W. 752; Security Sav. Bank v. Raker (1926) — S. D. —, 208 N. W. 786.

Tennessee. Farrar v. Bridges (1842) 3 Humph. 566; A. Landreth Co. v. Schevenel (1899) 102 Tenn. 486, 52 S. W. 148; Madison Trust Co. v. Stahlman (1915) 134 Tenn. 402, 183 S. W. 1012 (recognizing rule).

Texas. Lemmon v. Hanley (1866) 28 Tex. 219; Jackson v. Stockbridge (1867) 29 Tex. 394, 94 Am. Dec. 290; Bigham v. Bigham (1882) 57 Tex. 238; Chicago, T. & M. C. R. Co. v. Titterington (1892) 84 Tex. 218, 31 Am. St. Rep. 39, 19 S. W. 472 (recognizing rule); Moore v. Cross (1895) 87 Tex. 557, 29 S. W. 1051; Rapid Transit R. Co. v. Smith (1905) 98 Tex. 553, 86 S. W. 322; Lone Star L. Ins. Co. v. Shield (1921) Tex. -, 228 S. W. 196; King v. Wise (1926) Tex. 282 S. W. 570 (recognizing rule); Texas & P. R. Co. v. Burke (1880) 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. (White & W.) 531; Riley v. Treanor (1894) Tex. Civ. App., 25 S. W. 1054; M. T. Jones Lumber Co. v. Villegas (1894) 8 Tex. Civ. App. 669, 28 S. W. 558; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Miller (1895) 11 Tex. Civ. App. 536, 32 S. W. 550; McFarland v. McGill

-

Tex.

without any real belief in its truth, yet the same may not serve as a basis (1897) 16 Tex. Civ. App. 298, 41 S. W. 402; Jackson v. Chemical Nat. Bank (1898) Tex. Civ. App., 46 S. W. 295; Donoho v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. (1899) 22 Tex. Civ. App. 192, 54 S. W. 645; Hunter v. International Bldg. & L. Asso. (1900) 24 Tex. Civ. App. 453, 59 S. W. 596; Carter v. Ware Commission Co. (1907) 46 Tex. Civ. App. 7, 101 S. W. 524; Mutual Reserve L. Ins. Co. v. Seidel (1908) 52 Tex. Civ. App. 278, 113 S. W. 945 (recognizing rule); Selari v. Selari (1909) Tex. Civ. App. —, 124 S. W. 997; Buckingham v. Thompson (1911) Tex. Civ. App. 135 S. W. 652; Chambers v. Wyatt (1912) Tex. Civ. App. 151 S. W. 864, later appeal in (1915) Tex. Civ. App. 182 S. W. 16; Martin v. Daniel (1914) Tex. Civ. App. 164 S. W. 17; Cope v. Pitzer (1914) Tex. Civ. App. —, 166 S. W. 447; Security L. Ins. Co. v. Allen (1914) Tex. Civ. App. —, 170 S. W. 131; Holmes v. Coalson (1915) Civ. App., 178 S. W. 628, affirmed in (1922) 111 Tex. 502, 240 S. W. 896; Tex. Barnes v. Campbell (1915) Civ. App. 179 S. W. 444; Commonwealth Bonding & C. Ins. Co. v. Barrington (1914) Tex. Civ. App. 180 S. W. 936; General Bonding & C. Ins. Co. v. Mount (1916) - Tex. Civ. App., 183 S. W. 783 (recognizing rule); Hoch Hardware Co. v. Tropical Oil Co. (1916) Tex. Civ. App. —, 189 S. W. 313; Ore City Co. v. Rogers (1916) Tex. Civ. App. 190 S. W. 226; Laybourne v. Bray (1916) Tex. Civ. App. 190 S. W. 1159, later appeal in (1919) Tex. Civ. App. 214 S. W. 630; Oxweld Acetylene Co. v. Darden (1917) Tex. Civ. App. 194 S. W. 1131; McCoy v. Bankers' Trust Co. (1918) Tex. Civ. App. —, 200 S. W. 1138; Mid-Continent L. Ins. Co. v. Pendleton (1918) — Tex. Civ. App., 202 S. W. 769; Lott Town & Improv. Co. v. Harper (1918) Tex. Civ. App. 204 S. W. 452, affirmed in (1921) Tex. - 228 S. W. 188; Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. v. Short (1919) Tex. Civ. App. 212 S. W. 225; Burchill V. Hermsmeyer (1919) Tex. Civ. App., 212 S. W. 767, later appeal in (1921) Tex. Civ. App. 230 S. W. 809; American Law Book Co. v. Fulwiler (1920) — Tex. Civ. App., 219 S. W. 881; Long v. Calloway (1920) Tex. Civ. App. 220 S. W. 414; Wagner v. J. B.

-

for fraud. And this appears to be one of the distinguishing features of this Colt Co. (1921) - Tex. Civ. App. 234 S. W. 934; Berry v. American Rio Grande Land & Irrig. Co. (1921) Tex. Civ. App. 236 S. W. 550; Frost v. Thomas (1922) Tex. Civ. App. -, 238 S. W. 305; Inner Shoe Tire Co. v. Williamson (1922) - Tex. Civ. App., 240 S. W. 330; Houghton v. American Trust & Sav. Bank (1923) Tex. Civ. App. 247 S. W. 904; American Surety Co. v. Gracey (1923) - Tex. Civ. App. - 252 S. W. 263; Hamilton-Turner Grocery Co. v. Hander (1923) Tex. Civ. App. -, 253 S. W. 833; Higginbotham-Bartlett Co. v. Powell (1925) Tex. Civ. App. 270 S. W. 193; Starnes v. Motsinger (1925) Tex. Civ. App. 278 S. W. 496; Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Asso. v. Craddock (1926) Tex. Civ. App. —, 285 S. W. 949; Clem v. Evans (1926) Tex. Civ. App. — - 286 S. W. 273, reversed on other grounds in (1927) Tex. -, A.L.R.

291

S. W. 871; Johle v. Martin (1927) Tex. Civ. App., 291 S. W. 296; San Marcos Baptist Academy v. Burgess (1927) — Tex. Civ. App. —, 292 S. W. 626; Dibrell v. Central Nat. Bank (1927) Tex. Civ. App. —, 293 S. W. 874.

Utah. Campbell v. Zion's Co-op. Home Bldg. & Real Estate Co. (1914) 46 Utah, 1, 148 Pac. 401.

Vermont.-Best v. Smith (1882) 54 Vt. 617; Childs v. Merrill (1891) 63 Vt. 463, 14 L.R.A. 264, 22 Atl. 626; Shanks v. Whitney (1894) 66 Vt. 405, 29 Atl. 367; Alletson v. Powers (1900) 72 Vt. 417, 48 Atl. 647; Belka v. Allen (1909) 82 Vt. 456, 74 Atl. 91; Hunt v. Lewis (1914) 87 Vt. 528, 90 Atl. 578, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 170; Arnold v. Somers (1918) 92 Vt. 512, 105 Atl. 260; Girard v. Jerry (1921) 95 Vt. 129, 113 Atl. 533; Burlington Grocery Co. v. Lines (1923) 96 Vt. 405, 120 Atl. 169; Niles v. Danforth (1923) 97 Vt. 88, 122 Atl. 498 (recognizing rule); Miller v. Bleville (1924) 98 Vt. 243, 126 Atl. 590 (recognizing rule); La Croix v. Eaton (1925) 99 Vt. 262, 133 Atl. 745.

Virginia.-Watkins v. West Wytheville Land & Improv. Co. (1895) 92 Va. 1, 22 S. E. 554; Max Meadows Land & Improv. Co. v. Brady (1895) 92 Va. 71, 22 S. E. 845; Orr v. Goodloe (1896) 93 Va. 263, 24, S. E. 1014; Moore v. Barksdale (1896) 2 Va. Dec. 416, 25 S. E. 529; Lambert v. Crystal Spring

class of cases, as contrasted with cases where the statements relate to a past Land Co. (1897) 2 Va. Dec. 502, 27 S. E. 462; Slothower v. Oak Ridge Land Co. (1897) 2 Va. Dec. 506, 27 S. E. 466; Wren v. Moncure (1897) 95 Va. 369, 28 S. E. 588; Anderson v. Creston Land Co. (1898) 96 Va. 257, 31 S. E. 82; Campbell v. Eastern Bldg. & L. Asso. (1900) 98 Va. 729, 37 S. E. 350; Dudley v. Minor (1902) 100 Va. 728, 42 S. E. 870; Scott v. Boyd (1902) 101 Va. 28, 42 S. E. 918; Saxby v. Southern Land Co. (1909) 109 Va. 196, 63 S. E. 423; Rhoades v. Banking, Trust & Mortg. Co. (1919) 125 Va. 320, 99 S. E. 673; Maupin v. Levison (1925) 142 Va. 810, 128 S. E. 255. See also Rison v. Newberry (1894) 90 Va. 513, 18 S. E. 916 (false representation to be fraudulent must be false statement of facts, not opinions).

Washington.-Washington Cent. Improv. Co. v. Newlands (1895) 11 Wash. 212, 319 Pac. 366; West Seattle Land & Improv. Co. v. Herren (1897) 16 Wash. 665, 48 Pac. 341; Romaine v. Excelsior Carbide & Gas Mach. Co. (1909) 54 Wash. 41, 103 Pac. 32; Hewett v. Dole (1912) 69 Wash. 163, 124 Pac. 374; Stewart V. Larkin (1913) 74 Wash. 681, L.R.A.1916B, 1069, 134 Pac. 186; Manns v. Boston Harbor R. S. S. & Land Co. (1914) 82 Wash. 411, 144 Pac. 535; Y. M. C. A. v. Olds Co. (1915) 84 Wash. 630, L.R.A.1917F, 1132, 147 Pac. 406; Davis v. Masonic Protective Asso. (1917) 94 Wash. 406, 162 Pac. 516; Kirkland v. Dressel (1919) 104 Wash. 668, 177 Pac. 643; Lincoln Trust Co. v. Spangler (1922) 121 Wash. 267, 209 Pac. 521; Lovell v. Dotson (1924) 128 Wash. 669, 223 Pac. 1061; O'Neil v. Washelli Cemetery Asso. (1926) 138 Wash. 566, 244 Pac. 990; Hanlon v. Nelson (1926) 140 Wash. 123, 248 Pac. 59; Jacquot v. Farmers' Straw Gas Producer Co. (1926) 140 Wash. 482, 249 Pac. 984. See also Gardner v. Frederick (1917) 96 Wash. 324, 165 Pac. 85 (recognizing rule).

West Virginia. Love v. Teter (1884) 24 W. Va. 741; Buena Vista Co. v. Billmyer (1900) 48 W. Va. 382, 37 S. E. 583; Stalnaker v. Janes (1910) 68 W. Va. 176, 69 S. E. 651; Martin v. South Bluefield Land Co. (1917) 81 W. Va. 62, 94 S. E. 493; Kimmel v. Eastern Coal & Min. Co. (1924) 97 W. Va. 154, 124 S. E. 661.