12 Severson v. Kock, 159 la. 343, 140 N. W. 220.

13 Allen v. Talbot, 170 Mich. 664, 137 N. W. 97.

14 Lancaster v. Richardson (Tex. Civ. App.), 45 S. W. 409; Carney v. Herbert, 44 W. Va. 30, 28 S. E. 712.

15 Lee v. Tarplin, 183 Mass. 52, 66 N. E. 431; Wilson v. Robinson, 21 N. M. 422, 155 Ac. 732; Hecht v. Metzler, 14 Utah 408, 60 Am. St. Rep. 906, 48 Ac. 37.

16 Mitchell v. Coleman, 127 Ark. 373, 192 S. W. 231.

17 Woodward v. Western Canada Colonization Co., 134 Minn. 8, L. R. A. 1917C, 270, 158 N. W. 706; Griffith v. Gifford, 97 Wash. 22, 165 Ac. 874.

18 Bormann v. Hatfield, 96 Wash. 270, 164 Ac. 921 [sub nomine, Bormann v. Vyverberg, L. R. A. 1917E, 1052].

19 Shanks v. Whitney, 66 Vt. 405, 20 Atl. 367.

20 Interstate, etc., Association v. Tabor. 21 Tex. Civ. App. 112. 51 S. W. 300.

21 National Bank v. Rockefeller, 174 Fed. 22, 98 C. C. A. 8.

22 Helms v. Holton, 152 N. Car. 587, 67 S. E. 1061.

23 Hyer v. Smith, 48 W. Va. 550, 37 S. E. 632.

24 Commonwealth to use of Shaffer v. Julius, 173 Pa. St. 322, 34 Atl. 21.

25 Settle v. Stephens, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 695, 45 S. W. 969.

26 Swinney v. Patterson, 25 Nev. 411, 62 Ac. 1.

27 In re Gany, 103 Fed. 930; Openhym v. Blake, 157 Fed. 536; Atlas Shoe Co. v. Bechard, 102 Me. 197, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 245, 66 Atl. 390; Gallipolis Furniture Co. v. Symmes, 10 Ohio C. D. 514; Richardson v. Vick, 125 Tenn. 532, 145 S. W. 174.

28 Zabel v. Telephone Co., 127 Mich. 402, 86 N. W. 949.

29 Highland University v. Long, 7 Kan. App. 173, 53 Ac. 766.

30 Greenleaf v. Gerald, 94 Me. 91, 80 Am. St. Rep. 377, 50 L. R. A. 542, 46 Atl. 799 (where the number is exceeded).

31 Schultheis v. Sellers, 223 Pa. St. 513, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1210, 72 Atl. 887.

32 Brown v. Search, 131 Wis. 109, 111 N. W. 210.

33 Rumbaugh v. Rumbaugh, 39 Okla. 445, 135 Ac. 937.

34 Mills v Collins, 67 la. 164, 25 N. W. 109.

35 Cox v. Cline, 147 la. 353, 126 N. W. 330; Noble v. Fox, 35 Okla. 70, 43 goods that he has no general creditors, if by the law which governs such sale, the sale is fraudulent and void as against general creditors;36 that the parts of a machine offered for sale are interchangeable with those of another machine;37 that no goods like those sold to the purchaser have been sold to any one else in such town;38 that the seller has sold similar articles to the buyer's competitor;39 a false statement as to the year in which the automobile was made;40 that a horse was an imported Percheron stallion;41 that the horse which is offered for sale is entitled to registration;42 intentional falsification of inventories;43 a false statement concerning an unfiled chattel mortgage, even if it contains a provision that it is not valid until filed,44 or as to the amount of coal mined and sold the preceding year from the mine which is offered for sale,45 are all material. A statement that the owner of certain property will not take less than a certain sum for it, seems to be regarded as material.46 A statement that license commissioners had consented to the transfer of a license, is material.47 If A, who is offering to B a local agency for the sale of a patented article, misstates the number of sales which A has made in a similar agency, such statement is material.48 A statement by A, who is offering to B an oil lease for execution, to the effect that the bonus provided for in such lease is as large as that generally given in such leases at that time and place, is a statement of fact; and when taken in connection with A's failure to disclose the fact that a very heavily producing well had just been opened on an adjoining piece of land, is ground for setting the lease aside.49 In a contract for the exchange of property, a representation by the pretended owner of a chattel, that he is the owner thereof and that it is fully paid for, is material.50 A representation as to the varieties of fruit trees which are sold, is material.51 In insurance, the question is not whether the fact which was falsely stated actually caused the loss, but whether it affected the risk assumed by the insurer,52 or whether they are facts which affect the willingness of the insurer to undertake the risk, or the amount of the premium,53 or whether a reasonable man would regard such fact as increasing the risk.54 In a contract of life insurance, the age of the insured,55 the health of the insured,56 statements as to whether the insured has been treated by a physician,57 as to the time at which insured had last consulted a physician,58 the habits of the insured,59 that insured has not used liquor to excess,60 whether the insured had been rejected by any life insurance company,61 as to the relationship of the beneficiary to the insured,62 are all material. A false statement to the effect that the property was new when the insured bought it is material.63

L. R. A. (N.S.) 933, 128 Ac. 102; Elgin City Banking Co. v. Hall, 119 Tenn. 648, 108 S. W. 1068.

36 Field Grocery Co. v. Conley (Ky.), 104 S. W. 372.

37 Doylestown Agricultural Co. v. Brackett, Shaw & Lunt Co., 109 Me. 301, 84 Atl. 146.

38 French & American Importing Co. v. Belleville Drug Co., 75 Ark. 95, 86 S. W. 836.

39 Roebuck v. Wick, 98 Minn. 130, 107 N. W. 1054.

40 Grout v. Moulton, 79 Vt. 122, 64 Atl. 453.

41 Brucker v. Kairn, 89 Neb. 274, 131 N. W. 382.

42 Merrifield v. McClay, 72 Or. 90, 142 Ac. 587.

43 Alfred Hiller Co. v. Insurance Co., 125 La. 938, 52 So. 104.

44 Madsen v. Farmers' & Merchants' Ins. Co., 87 Neb. 107, 126 N. W. 1086.

45 King v. Lamborn, 186 Fed. 21, 108 C. C. A. 123.

46 Norris v. Home City Lodge, - Mich. - , 168 N. W. 935.

47 Greil Bros. Co. v. McLain, 197 Ala. 136, 72 So. 410.

48 Crooker v. White, 162 Ala. 476, 50 So. 227.

49 Douglass v. Treat, 246 111. 593, 92 N. E. 976.

50 Hafer v. Cole, 176 Ala. 242, 57 So. 757.

51 Bone well v. Jacobson, 130 la. 170, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 436, 106 N. W. 614.

52 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mullan, 107 Md. 457, 69 Atl. 385.

53 Gardner v. North State Mutual Life Insurance Co., 163 N. Car. 367, 79 S. E. 806.

54 United States Health & Accident Ins. Co. v. Bennett's Adm'r (Ky.), 105 S. W. 433.

55 Johnson v. American National Life Insurance Co., 134 Ga. 800, 68 S. E. 731; Elliott v. Knights of Modern Maccabees, 46 Wash. 320, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 856, 89 Ac. 929.

56 Grand Fraternity v. Keatley, 27 Del. 308, 88 Atl. 553.

"It seems to us the necessary result of finding that an application for a policy of life insurance contains a willful untruth as to whether the applicant had consumption was necessarily a finding that the policy was procured by fraud. The supreme court thought there was no proof that this misrepresentation was material, or that the company may have been aware of its falsity and issued the policy regardless of that fact. The fact that the company asks the question shows it is material, and it is common knowledge to assume that life insurance companies do not accept for life insurance tubercular persons.

"It is said the most essential element of fraud is deceit. What could be the purpose of the insured making a statement, that was a willful untruth, about his health, which he must have known was important and material, if it was not to deceive?" Duff v. Prudential Insurance Co., 90 N. J. L. 646, 101 Atl. 371.

57 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mullan, 107 Md. 457, 69 Atl. 385.

58 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bru-baker, 78 Kan. 146, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 362, 96 Ac. 62.

59 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mullan, 107 Md. 457, 69 Atl. 385.

60 Forwood v. Prudential Insurance Co., 117 Md. 254, 83 Atl. 169.

61Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Moore, 231 U. S. 543, 58 L. ed. 356.

62 Continental Casualty Co. v. Lmd-say, 111 Va. 389, 69 S. E. 344.

A false statement which affects the risk is material, even if the actual loss is not due to the fact concerning which such false statement was made.64

A statement concerning the income accruing from a business which is offered for sale may amount to fraud, for which the purchaser of such business may avoid the contract of sale.65

Many other examples of material representations have already been given and need not be repeated.66