No legal wrong is caused by false and fraudulent representations unless they are acted upon. And a person induced by false representations to do an act which it was his duty to do, has had no legal rights infringed.58 An injurious result must be produced in order to give cause for complaint." But it is not necessary that such representations should have formed the only inducement for entering into a transaction; it is enough if they were a material inducement.10 Where one to whom false statements are made undertakes to verify them and form a judgment of his own upon the facts, this is evidence of a reliance on his own judgment rather than on the representations, and no relief can be had,61 unless it is found as a fact that the representations were also relied upon.62 The falsity of a statement may be so obvious as to preclude the inference that action was based in reliance upon it;63 and if the falsity of representations is discovered before the transaction is finally entered into, they are immaterial.64 Where representations have been made in regard to a material matter and action has been taken, in the absence of evidence showing the contrary, it will be presumed that the representations were relied on.65

58 Musoonetoong Iron Works v, Delaware Ac. R. Co., 78 N. J. L. 717, 76 Atl. 971.

59 Attwood v. Small, 6 C. & F. 232, 444; Smith c. Kay, 7 H. of L. Cas. 750, 775; Maeleay v. Tait, [1906] A. C. 24; Wagner v. National Ins. Co., 90 Fed. 395, 61 U. S. App. 691,33 C. C. A. 121; Missouri Phonograph Co. v. Tomlin-eon, 249 Fed. 658, 161 C. C. A. 568; Moses v. Katzenberger, 84 Ala. 95, 4 So. 237; Darby v. Kroell, 82 Ala. 807, 8 So. 384; Hallidie v. First Federal Trust Co., 177 Cal. 600,171 Pao. 431; Hooker v. Midland Steel Co., 215 111. 444, 74 N. B. 445, 106 Am. St. Rep. 170; Bowman v. Carithers, 40 Ind. 90; First Nat. Bank v. Garner (Ind.), 118 N. E. 813, 119 N. E. 711; Palmer v. Bell, 85 Me. 352, 27 Atl. 250; Ely v. Stewart, 2 Md. 408; Dawe v. Morris, 149 Mass. 188, 192, 21 N. E. 313, 4 L. R. A. 158, 14 Am. St. Rep. 404; Bilafsky v. Conveyancers' Title Ins. Co., 192 Mass. 504, 510, 78 N. E. 534; Humphrey v. Metriman, 32 Minn. 197, 20 N. W. 138; Anderson v. Burnett, 6 How. (Miss.) 165, 35 Am. Dec. 425; American Asan. v. Bear, 48 Neb. 456, 67 N. W. 500; Brackett v. Gris-wold, 112 N. Y. 454, 20 N. E. 376; Hotchkm v. Third Nat. Bank, 127

N. Y. 329, 27 N. E. 1060; Foy v. Hanghton, 83 N. C. 467; Trammell v. Aahworth, 99 Va. 646, 39 S. E. 593; Stalnaker v. Janes, 68 W. Va. 176, 60 S. E. 651; Fowler v. MoCann, 86 Wis. 427, 56 N. W. 1085.

60 Clarke v. Dickson, 6 C. B. (N. S.) 453; Union Mfg. Co. v. East Alabama Bank, 129 Ala. 292, 29 So. 781; Spinks v. Clark, 147 Cal. 439, 82 Pac 45; Davis v. Reynolds, 107 Me. 61, 77 Atl. 409; Ochs v. Woods, 221 N. Y. 335, 117 N. E. 305; Safford v. Grout, 120 Mass. 20; Shaw v. Gilbert, 111 Wis. 165, 86 N. W. 188. In Macleay v. Tait, [1906] A. C. 24, 26, Lord Halsbury said: "If the prospectus is calculated to induce people to take shares, and they do take shares, the prospectus, tainted with falsehood as it is, has acted as a whole, and people cannot be expected to analyse their own mental sensations so minutely as to be able to explain what particular statement had induoed them to become subscribers." In Light v. Jacobs, 183 Mass. 206, 66 N. E. 790, the court said: "It is not necessary that false representations should have been the sole or even the predominant motive."