19 Oakes v. Milter, 11 Colo. App. 374, 55 Ac. 193.

20 Tracy v. Smith, 175 Cal. 161, 165 Ac. 535.

21 Coon v. Atwell, 46 N. H. 510.

22 Mitchell v. Coteman, 127 Ark. 373, 192 S. W. 231; Rumbaugh v. Settle-meier, 88 Or. 105, 171 Ac. 560.

23 Woodward v. Western Canada Colonization Co., 134 Minn. 8, L. R. A. 1917C, 270, 158 N. W. 706.

24 Woodward v. Western Canada Colonization Co., 134 Minn. 8, L. R. A. 1917C, 270, 158 N. W. 706.

25 Stevens v. Allen, 51 Kan. 144, 32 Ac. 922.

26 Gunther v. Ullrich, 82 Wis. 222, 33 Am. St. Rep. 32, 52 N. W. 88.

27 Green v. Turner, 80 Fed. 41; Perkins v. Rice, Lit. Sel. Case. (Ky.) 218, 12 Am. Dec. 298; Hasse v. Freud, 119 Mich. 358, 78 N. W. 131.

Still more is adding silver to samples of ore, thereby showing a much richer grade of ore on analysis than exists: Mudsill Mining Co. v. Watrous, 61 Fed. 163.

28 Cleavenger v. Sturm, 59 W. Va. 658, 53 S. E. 593.

29 Glaspie v. Keator, 56 Fed. 203; Chase v. Boughton, 93 Mich. 285, 54 N. W. 44.

30 Coulter v. Clark, 160 Ind. 311, 66 N. E. 739.

31 King v. White, 119 Ala. 429, 24 So. 710; Scholfield, etc., Co. v. Scholfield, 7l Conn. 1, 40 Atl. 1046.

32 Scholfield, etc., Co. v. Scholfield, 71 Conn. 1, 40 Atl. 1046; Pyroleum Appliance Co. v. Williamsport, etc., Co., 169 Pa. St. 440, 32 Atl. 458.

33 Rice v. Gilbreath, 119 Ala. 424, 24 So. 421; Merillat v. Plummer, 111 la. 643, 82 N. W. 1020; Pyroleum Appliance Co. v. Williamsport, etc., Co., 169 Pa. St. 440, 32 Atl. 458; as that the strainer of a patent churn would "separate the butter from the milk without handling": Rice v. Gilbreath, 119 Ala. 424, 24 So. 421.

34 Dillman v. Nadlehoffer, 119 111. 567, 7 N. E. 88; Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363, 36 Am. Rep. 198; Hunter v. McLaughlin, 43 Ind. 38.

A false statement as to solvency either of a party to the transaction or of a third person,45 as that one who buys goods on credit is not in debt, and that his assets exceed his liabilities,46 or that "the mill is doing well,"47 or a bank is in "a safe, sound, prosperous, and solvent condition,"48 or that one is "perfectly safe,"49 or that a maker of a note is insolvent,50 or fraudulently concealing the illegality of the transaction,51 as by representing that Jameson's raid into the Transvaal was authorized by the British government,52 are each material facts. A statement as to the qualities of an animal by one who had owned it for some time,53 or as to its pedigree,54 or freedom from disease,55 or weight,56 are material facts.

35 United States. Nevada Bank v. National Bank, 59 Fed. 338.

Illinois. Mayberry v. Rogers, 81 111. App. 581.

Massachusetts. Kimball v. Bangs, 144 Mass. 321, 11 N. E. 113.

New Jersey. Garrison v. Electric Works, 56 N. J. Eq. 708, 37 Atl. 741.

New York. Townsend v. Felthousen, 156 N. Y. 618, 51 N. E. 279.

Texas. Gainesville National Bank v. Bamberger, 77 Tex. 48, 19 Am. St. Rep. 738, 13 S. W. 959; Hume v. Steele (Tex. Civ. App.), 59 S. W. 812.

Washington. Randolph v. Togus, 85 Wash. 332, 148 Ac. 5.

36 Boles v. Merrill, 173 Mass. 491, 73 Am. St. Rep. 308, 53 N. E. 894.

37 Nisson v. Hood, 140 Cal. 224, 73 Ac. 981.

38 Connecticut Beckwith v. Ryan, 66 Conn. 589, 34 Atl. 488; Shelton v. Healy, 74 Conn. 265, 50 Atl. 742.

Illinois. Mayberry v. Rogers, 81 111. App. 581.

Minnesota. Redding v. Wright, 49 Minn. 322, 51 N. W. 1056.

Rhode Island. Handy v. WaMron, 19 R. I. 618, 35 Atl. 884; same case, 18 R. I. 567, 49 Am. St Rep. 794, 29 Atl. 143.

Utah. DeFrees v. Carr, 8 Utah 488, 33 Ac. 217.

39 Gerner v. Yates, 61 Neb. 100, 84 N. W. 596.

40 Bank v. Halsey, 109 Ala. 196, 19 So., 522; Penn, etc, Insurance Co., v. Crane, 134 Mass. 56, 45 Am. Rep. 282;-Hedden v. Griffin, 136 Mass. 229, 49 Am. Rep. 25.

41 Moline Plow Co. v. Carson, 72 Fed. 387 (where such offer was withdrawn on learning the facts).

42 Wilson v. Nichols, 72 Conn. 173, 43 Atl. 1052; Wenegar v. Bollenbach, 180 111. 222, 54 N. E. 192; Hulett v. Kennedy, 4 Ind. App. 33, 30 N. E. 310; Winston v. Young, 47 Minn. 80, 49 N. W. 521.

43 Wenegar v. Bollenbach, 180 111. 222, 54 N. E. 192.

44 Hexter v. Bast, 125 Pa. St 52, 11 Am. St Rep. 874, 17 Atl. 252.

45 England. Bank of Paton (H. L.) (1896), A. C. 381, 65 L. J. P. C. N. S. 73.

United States. Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Martin, 222 Fed. 851, 138 C. C. A. 277; In re Hunter-Rand Co., 241 Fed. 175.

Alabama. Williamson v. Tyson, 105 Ala. 644, 17 So. 336; Merritt v. Ehr-man, 116 Ala. 278, 22 So. 514.

A false statement as to the quality of goods which are sold is fraud for which such contract may be avoided.57 A false statement "that a sash could be double glazed," that is, that two panes of glass could be set in each section of the sash instead of one, may be fraud. A false representation that a book is one of a special limited edition, is fraud, if such book would have had an additional value if such statement had been true.58 A statement that jewelry is "good, merchantable, and durable," is a statement of fact if made to one who has no knowledge of jewelry and who relies upon such statement.60

Colorado. Goodale v. Middaugh, 8 Colo. App. 223, 46 Ac. 11.

Delaware. Freeman v. Topkis, 1 Marv. (Del.) 174, 40 Atl. 948.

Iowa. Hubbard v. Weare, 79 la. 678, 44 N. W. 915; P. Cox Shoe Co. v. Adams, 105 la. 402, 75 N. W. 316.

Maine. Henry v. Dennis, 93 Me. 106, 44 Atl. 369; Atlas Shoe Co. v. Becbard, 102 Me. 197, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 245, 66 Atl. 390.

Missouri. Felix v. Shirey, 60 Mo. App. 621.

Ohio. Frost v. Lowry, 15 Ohio 200.

Vermont Childs v. Merrill, 63 Vt. 463, 14 L. R. A. 264, 22 Atl. 626.

Washington. Gates v. Moldstad, 14 Wash. 419, 44 Ac. 881.

46 Atlas Shoe Co. v. Bechard, 102 Me. 197, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 245, 66 Atl. 390.

47 Henry v. Dennis, 93 Me. 106, 44 Atl. 360.

48 Hubbard v. Briggs, 31 N. Y. 518.

49 Felix v. Shirey, 60 Mo. App. 621.

50 Meier v. Jackson, 78 Mo. App. 396.

51 Davidson v. Hobson, 59 Mo. App. 190.

52 Burrow v. Rhodes (1899), 1 Q. B. 816:

53 Darling v. Stuart, 63 Vt. 570, 22 Atl. 634.

54 Scroggin v. Wood, 87 la. 497, 54 N. W. 437; McFarland v. McGill, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 298, 41 S. W. 402.

55 Moncrief v. Wilkinson, 93 Ala. 373, 9 So. 159; Scroggin v. Wood, 87 la. 497, 54 N. W. 437; Stevens v. Bradley, 89 la. 174, 56 N. W. 429.

56 Birdsey v. Butterfield, 34 Wis. 52 (where weighed shortly before the statement was made).

57 American Pure Food Co. v. Elliott, 151 N. Car. 393, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 910, 66 S. E. 451.

58 Johnson v. Otsen, 134 Minn. 53, 158 N. W. 805.

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

60 See to the same effect, Johnson County Savings Bank v. Mendell, 36 D. C. App. 413; Stouffer v. Alford, 114 Md. 110, 78 Atl. 387; Lyon v. Lind-blad, 145 Mich. 588,108 N. W. 969.

A false statement as to the amount shown to be due on balancing an account is a material fact.61 A statement that' the period of limitations has run in favor of a tax deed, is a mixed statement of law and fact if by law such statute runs only if the grantee under the tax deed is in possession, and such statement was made by a grantee who had not been in possession, and it was made to the heirs of the original owner to induce them to convey their interests to such grantee.62 A false statement as to the amount of work which is to be done is fraud which will justify a contractor who has entered into a contract in reliance on such statement, in avoiding such contract.63 A specific statement as to the actual character of injuries made to induce a compromise of a claim for such in-juries may constitute fraud.64

A statement by one who knows of a defect in property which he offers for sale, to the effect that he knows nothing about such property, is fraud.