In contracts for the sale of goods the question whether a statement is one of fact or opinion will arise in regard to statements of the quantity, quality, or value of the goods; or statements in regard to the pecuniary responsibility of the buyer. Illustrations of such cases are given in the note below." All a Such a statement as that a piece of goods is the "Best piece of cloth in the market," is not a warranty. Strauss v. Saber, 58 N. Y. Misc. 573, 109 N. Y. 8. 734.

18 Henry v. Dennis, 93 Me. 106, 44 Atl. 369. See also Sherman v. Smith (la.), 169 N. W. 216.

19 Quantity. - Cole v. Smith, 26 Colo. 506, 58 Pac. 1086 (the seller agreed to sell a herd of cattle running on the range which, as the buyer knew, had not been rounded up for a long time, and a number of which were conf essedly unknown. It was held that an action of deceit would not lie for a misrepresentation of the number); BrockhauB v. Schilling, 52 Mo. App. 73 (on the sale of a quantity of liquor open to inspection it was held that an inaccurate statement that it would last a certain length of time could not form the basis of a claim for fraud). Quality. - A statement by a seller that a patent is valid, or that a machine is effective, are statements of opinion. Chalmers v. Harding, 17 L. T. (N. S.) 671; Reeves v. Corning,

51 Fed. 74; Hubcr v. Guggenheim, 89 Fed. 598; Tabor v. Peters, 74 Ala. 90, 49 Am. Rep. 804; Hunter v. McLaughlin, 43 Ind. 38; Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363, 36 Am. Rep. 198; Bigler v. Flickinger, 55 Fa, St. 279. Cf. Smith A Nixon Co. v. Morgan, 152 Ky. 430, 153 S. W. 749. See also Fuchs & Lang Mfg. Co. v. Kittredge, 242 111 88, 89 N. E. 723. Many illustrations in regard to expression of opinion in regard to quality of goods are collected under the head of warranty. Willis ton, Sales, 1203. See also Vulcan Metals Co. v. Simmons Mfg. Co., 248 Fed. 853, 161 C. C. A. 7, cert, denied 247 U. S. 507, 62 L. Ed. 1241, 38 S. Ct. 427; Gleaaon v. McPherson, 175 Cal. 594, 166 Pac. 332. Value. - Gordon v. Butler, 105 U. S. 553, 26 L. Ed. 1166; Reid v. Shaffer, 249 Fed. 553,161 C. C. A. 479; Tillis e. Smith Sons Lumber Co., 188 Ala. 122, 65 So. 1015; Wegerer v. Jordan, 10 Cal. App. 362, 101 Pac. 1066; Schramm v. O'Connor, 98 111. 539; Evans v. Gerry, 174 111. 595, 51 N. E. 615; Crank v. Cole, 10 Ind. 485; Kennedy v. Richardson, 70 Ind. 524; these matters, however, may sometimes be the subject of statements of fact as distinguished from opinion. It is obvious that the quantity of goods may usually be exactly determined and a false statement to the effect that it has been determined to be a certain amount is fraudulent.20 So statements of the quality of goods may often relate to characteristics subject to exact determination.21 So any false statements in regard to the basis of value, as the cost or price paid by a third person,22 or the

Bolts v. OConner, 45 Ind. App. 178, 90 N. E. 496; Burns v. Mahannah, 39 Kans. 87, 17 Pac. 319; Davis v. Reynolds, 107 Me. 61, 77 Atl. 409; Reynolds v. Evans, 123 Md. 365, 91 Atl. 564; Poland v. Brownell, 131 Mass. 138, 41 Am. Rep. 215; Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504,20 N. E. 107,2 L. R. A. 743; Lynch v. Murphy, 171 Mass. 307, 50 N. E. 623; Johnson v. Seymour, 79 Mich. 156, 44 N. W. 344; Face v. Hall, 177 Mich. 495, 143 N. W. 622; Boas-berg v. Walker, 111 Minn. 445, 127 N. W. 467; Vath v. Wiechmann, 138 Minn. 87, 163 N. W. 1028; Moody v. Baxter, 167 Mo. App. 521, 152 S. W. 117; Realty Inv. Co. v. Shafer, 91 Neb. 798, 137 N. W. 873; Page v. Parker, 43 N. H. 363, 80 Am. Dec. 172; Uhler v. Sem-ple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288; Chrysler v. Canaday, 90 N. Y. 272, 43 Am. Rep. 166; Van Slochem v. Villard, 207 N. Y. 587, 101 N. E. 467; Romaine v. Excelsior Carbide Ac. Co., 54 Wash. 41, 103 Pac. 32; Billups v. Montenegro-Rheims Music Co., 69 W. Va. 15, 70 S. E. 779. Pecuniabt Responsibil-nr. - Haycraft v. Creesy, 2 East, 92; Gainsford v. Blackford, 7 Price, 544; People's Savings Bank v. James, 178 Mass. 322, 59 N. E. 807; Lyons c Briggs, 14 R. I. 222, 51 Am. Rep. 372; Jude v. Woodburn, 27 Vt. 415.

20 Lewis r. Jewell, 151 Mass. 345, 24 N. E. 52, 21 Am. St. Rep. 454 (where a knowingly false statement of the number of yards of carpet on the floors of a house was held ground for an action of deceit. Nor was it material that the buyer might have measured the carpets had be chosen to do so); Birdsey v. Butterfield, 34 Wis. 52 (in this case the sellers of cattle asserted that they would weigh on the average over 900 pounds. In fact the average weight was about 835 pounds. It was held that the buyer might recoup damages for the deceit in an action on a note given for the price). See also Worcester v. Cook, 220 Mass. 539, 108 N. E. 511 (land).

21 Jackson v. Collins, 39 Mich. 557. See also s. c, Collins v. Jackson, 54 Mich. 186, 19 N. W. 947. The defendant sold a stock of goods representing them as new, well-selected, and salable, and that old goods in the stock had been removed. It was also represented that the stock contained over $8,000 worth of new goods and that they had been bought at the lowest market price. It was held these representations furnished ground for an action of deceit. So in Stewart v. Stearns, 63 N. H. 99, 56 Am. Rep. 496, representations that goods were "clean and desirable" and that they were of "good styles and salable" were held to render the seller liable. The numerous decisions under the law of warranty may also be referred to.

22 Gluckstein v. Barnes, [1900] A. C. 240, 247; Zang v. Adams, 23 Colo. 408, 48 Pac. 509, 58 Am. St. Rep. 249; Green v. Bryant, 2 Ga. 66; Douglass v. Treat, 246 111. 593, 92 N. E. 976; past income from property 23 may amount to fraud. Even statements of value without specification of the basis of the estimate have been in some cases held actionable, especially when made by one supposed to have expert knowledge.24 A

Teachout v. Van Hoeeen, 78 Iowa, 113, 40 N. W. 96, 1 L. R. A. 664, 14 Am. St. Rep. 206; Dorr p. Cory, 108 Iowa, 725, 78 N. W. 682; Johnson v. Gavitt, 114 Iowa, 183, 86 N. W. 266; Potter v. Potter, 66 III. App. 74; Caswell v. Hunton, 87 Me. 277, 33 Atl. 899; Braley v. Powers, 92 Me. 203, 42 Atl. 362; Pendergast v. Reed, 29 Md. 398, 96 Am. Dec. 639; Mc-Aleer p. Honey, 36 Md. 439; Kil-gore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 138, 44 N. E. 108; Stony Creek Co. t. Smal-ley, 111 Mich. 321, 69 N. W. 722; Pratt v. Allegan Circuit Judge, 177 Mich. 658, 143 N. W. 890; Van Epps v. Harrison, 5 Hill, 63, 40 Am. Dec. 314; Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wend. 260; Fan-child v. MoMahon, 139 N. Y. 290, 34 N. E. 779, 36 Am. St. Rep. 701; Townsend v. Felthousen, 1S6 N. Y. 618, 61 N. E. 279; Van Slochem v. Villard, 207 N. Y. 587, 101 N. E. 467; Nanes v. Peck & Mack Co., 181 N. Y. App. D. 760,169N. Y. S.224; National Bank of Anadarko v. Oldham, 26 Old. 139, 109 Pac. 75. See also Coolidge v. Rhodes, 199 HI. 24, 64 N. E. 1074; Conlan v. Roemer, 52 N. J. L. 63, 57, 18 Atl. 858; Edelman v. Latshaw, 180 Pa. St. 419, 36 Atl. 926. In Mayo v. Latham, 159 Mich. 136,123 N. W. 661, the statement of a selling agent that the price asked was cheaper than the buyer could procure the goods elsewhere was held merely a statement of opinion. Cf. Stout v. Caruthereville Hardware Co., 131 Mo. App. 520, 110 8. W. 619. Some early cases in Massachusetts and Maine treated statements of cost as similar to statements of value and, therefore, as not constituting fraud, though made with intent to deceive, but this doctrine has been discredited by the cases cited above; and although followed in a few jurisdictions must be regarded as erroneous. See Holbrook o. Connor, 60 Me. 678, 11 Am. Rep. 212; Bishop v. Small, 63 Me. 12; Richardson v. Noble, 77 Me. 390; Davis v. Reynolds, 107 Me. 61, 77 Atl. 409; Hemmer v Cooper, 8 Allen, 334; Cooper p. Lov-ering, 106 Mass. 77; Way v. Rytber, 165 Mass. 226, 42 N. E. 1128; Gas-sett v. Olasier, 165 Mass. 473, 43 N. E. 193; Boles v. Merrill, 173 Mass. 491, 494, 63 N. E. 894, 73 Am. St. Rep. 308. See also Mackenzie v. Seeberger, 76 Fed. 108, 40 U. S. App. 188, 22 C. C. A. 83; Tuck v. Downing, 76 111. 71; Elerick v. Reid, 54 Kans. 579, 38 Pac. 814; Sowers v. Parker, 59 Kans. 12, 51 Pac. 888; Peck u. Morgan (Tex. Civ. App.), 166 S. W. 917.

23 Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cat. 253, 165 Pac. 702; Vouros v. Pierce, 226 Mass. 175, 115 N. E. 297.

24 Zimmern v. Blount, 238 Fed. 740, 151 C. C. A. 590; Southern Trust Co. v. Lucas, 245 Fed. 286, 157 C. C. A. 478; Cruess v. Feseler, 39 Cat. 336; Loans, v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. 11, 30, 24 Pac. 707, 9 L. R. A. 376; Edmonds v. Wilcox, 178 Cal. 222, 172 Pac. 1101; McDowell b. Caldwell, 116 Iowa, 475; Evans p. Palmer, 137 la. 425, 114 N. W. 912; Dawe v. Morris, 149 Mass. 188, 191, 21 N. E. 313, 4 L. R. A. 158, 14 Am. St. Rep. 404; Welch v. Olmatead, 90 Mich. 492, 51 N. W. 641; Maxted v. Fowler, 94 Mich. 106, 63 N. E. 921; Griffin v. Farrier, 32 Minn. 474, 21 N. W. 553; Haven v. Neal, 43 Minn. 316, 45 N. W. 612; Schmidt v. Thompson, (Minn. 1918), 167 N. W. 543; Giles v. Horner, 97 Neb. 162, 149 N. W. 333; Henry v. Collier, (Okl. 1918), false statement by a broker that his principal would not take less than a certain price, so far as it involves a statement of present fact, is equivalent only to a false statement of the estimate of value placed upon the property by the principal.25 But statements as to the pecuniary condition of a buyer, even though expressed in somewhat indefinite language, may involve the assertion as a fact that he has sufficient means to make his payment for what he buys sure.26