West Virginia. Martin v. South Bluefield Land Co., 81 W. Va. 62, 94 S. E. 493.

2 Old Colony Trust Co. v. Traction Co., 89 Fed. 794; Langley v. Rodriguez, 122 Cal. 580, 55 Ac. 406; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301, 166 N. W. 347.

3 Meldrum v. Meldrum, 15 Colo. 478, 11 L. R. A. 65, 24 Ac. 1083; Hursen v. Hursen, 212 111. 377, 103 Am. St. Rep. 230, 72 N. E. 391; Basye v. Basye, 152 Ind. 172, 52 N. E. 797 [citing Evans v. Edmonds, 13 C. B. 777; Brison v. Brison, 75 Cal. 525, 7 Am. St. Rep. 189, 17 Ac. 689; Stone v. Wood, 85 111. 603; Meldrum v. Meldrum, 15 Colo. 478, 11 L. R. A. 65, 24 Ac. 1083; Turner v. Turner, 44 Mo. 535].

4 Clarkson v. Pruett, - Ala. - , 79 So. 194.

Contra: where the grantor makes such conveyance to induce grantee to marry him before the expiration of the statutory period after grantor's divorce, and while such marriage was a felony and void by statute: Szlauzis v. Szlauzis, 255 111. 314, L. R. A. 1916C, 741, 99 N. E. 640.

5 DeLissa v. Coal Co., 59 Kan. 319, 52 Ac. 886; Horton v. Lee, 106 Wis. 439, 82 N. W. 360.

If A and B have entered into a contract by which A agrees to sell a tract of land to B for a certain price, and B, in order to escape liability under such contract, induces X to offer to A a much higher price for such tract of land, X not intending to pay therefor, and if A is thus induced to rescind his contract with B, A may avoid such contract of rescission for such fraud and may enforce the original contract: Jones v. Booth, 38 0. S. 405.

6 Koehler v. Dennison, 72 Or. 362, 143 Ac. 649.

7 Elliott Supply Co. v. Lish, 36 N. D. 640, 163 N. W. 271.

8 McFarland v. McGill, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 298, 41 S. W. 402.

9 American Hosiery Co. v. Baker, 18 Ohio C. C. 604; Detroit Electrical Works v. Ry, Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 412.

10 Dowd v. Tucker, 41 Conn. 197; Kaut v. Gerdemann, 109 Mo. 552, 19 S. W. 73; Kithcart v. Larimore, 34 Neb. 273, 51 N. W. 768.

Fraud was committed by A (a husband) falsely stating to his wife that his brother B would convey to him stock in his business, thereby inducing her to deed her property to B, B intending to convey the property to A: Ilgenfritz v. Ilgenfritz, 116 Mo. 429, 22 S. W. 786.

11 Cearley v. May (Tex.), 167 S. W. 725.

12 Stout v. Stout, 165 la. 552, L. R. A. 1915A, 711, 146 N. W. 474.

13 Rapid Transit Railway Co. v. Smith, 98 Tex. 553, 86 S. W. 322.

14 Ward v. Cook, 158 Mich. 283, 122 N. W. 785.

15 Bride v. Riffe, 93 Neb. 355, 140

N. W. 639; White Sewing Machine Co. v. Bullock, 161 N. Car. 1, 76 S. E. 634. 16 A was surety on a constable's bond. B, who claimed damage by reason of misconduct in office, obtained a note from A by representing to him that he did not intend to enforce it, but wished it to show the town that the matter was settled. It was held that this fraud avoided the note even if B had a claim against the town, and the town an action over against A: Wilbur v. Prior, 67 Vt. 508, 32 Atl. 474. Where a married woman was not liable as surety, but was liable as principal, inducing a married woman who means to be surety only to sign as co-principal, representing that no liability will be incurred thereon and then transferring to a bona fide holder, whereby such surety is obliged to pay the note, fraud exists: Jones v. Crawford, 107 Ga. 318, 45 L. R. A. 105, 33 S. E. 51. So where A had the legal title and B the equitable, B was guilty of fraud in assigning his equitable interest and then getting A's heirs to convey to C, who conveyed to bona fide purchasers: Smith v. Glover, 44 Minn. 260, 46 N. W. 406.

A promise to make a specified use of the tract sold, thereby affecting the value of the rest of the original tract, is fraud if made without the intention of performing it,25 such as a promise to construct buildings of a certain character upon the part which is sold26 If B is induced to sell land to A in reliance upon A's representation that he is going to build dwelling houses thereon, when in fact A intends to build a public garage thereon, and such use will depreciate other property which B does not sell, B may have rescission in equity for such fraud, even though the deed has been delivered.27 A promise not to make use of the land which is purchased in any way which will interfere with vendor's adjoining land, when in fact the purchaser intends to construct an interurban railroad thereon, is fraud.28 A statement that the vendor intended to improve the neighborhood by certain public improvements, is fraud if such intention does not exist.29 If land is bought in reliance upon vendors' promise to make expensive improvements, including the dredging of a harbor and the construction of a large hotel, such contract can not be avoided for fraud if the vendors intended to construct such improvements, and if they have proceeded with such improvements and have spent a large amount of money thereon, even though the work is not progressing as rapidly as expected.30

17 Langley v. Rodriguez, 122 Cal. 680, 55 Ac. 406. A statement by a creditor of an insolvent street railway as to the improvements which the creditors intended to put on the road, to induce another company to consolidate, is a statement of fact as of an existing intent: Old Colony Trust Co. v. Traction Co., 89 Fed. 794.

18 Haworth v. Crosby, 120 la. 612, 94 N. W. 1098.

19Matteson v. Wagoner, 147 Cal. 739, 82 Ac. 436.

20 Comstock v. Livingston, 210 Mass. 581, 97 N. . 106.

21 Turner v. Ry., 15 Wash. 213, 55 Am. St. Rep. 883, 46 Ac. 243.

22 Holmes v. Wilkes, 130 Minn. 170, 153 N. W. 308.

23 McLaughlin v. Thomas, 86 Conn. 252, 85 Atl. 370.

24 Rudisill v. Whitener, 146 N. Car. 403, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 81, 59 S. E. 995.

25 Connecticut. Brett v. Cooney, 75 Conn. 338, 53 Atl. 729.

Michigan. Gibb v. Mintline, 175 Mich. 626, 141 N. W. 538.

New York. Adams v. Qillig, 199 N. Y. 314, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 127, 92 N. E 670.