62 Minn. 265, 64 N. W. 816, and Bee Jorden v. Money, 5 H. L. Cas. 185.

3 Harrington v. Rutherford, 38 Fla. 321, 21 So. 283; Haenni v. Bleisch, 146 111. 262, 34 N. E. 153.

4 Chicago, etc., Co. v. Titterington, 84 Tex. 218, 31 Am. St. Rep. 39, 10 S. W. 472.

5 Anderson v. Land Co., 96 Va. 257, 31 S. E. 82.

6 Orr v. Goodloe, 93 Va. 263, 24 S. E. 1014.

7 Day v. Improvement Co., 153 111. 293, 38 N. E. 567 [affiling 53 111. App. 165].

8 Seymour v. Cushway, 100 Wis. 580, 69 Am. St. Rep. 957, 76 N. W. 769 [citing Dunphy v. Ryan, 116 U. S. 491, 29 L. ed. 703; Lantry v. Lantry, 51 111. 458, 2 Am. Rep. 310; Hoge v. Hoge, 1 Watts (Pa.) 163, 26 Am. Dec 52].

9 Witt v. Cuenod, 9 N. M. 143, 50 Ac. 328 [citing Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James, 94 U. S. 207, 24 L. ed. 112;

Fenwick v. Grimes, 5 Cranch C. C. 439; Day v. Investment Co., 153 111. 293, 38 N. E. 567; Burt v. Bowles, 69 Ind. 1; Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49; Chicago, etc., Co. v. Titterington, 84 Tex. 218, 31 Am. St. Rep. 39, 19 S. W. 472; Moore v. Cross, 87 Tex. 557, 29 S. W. 1051; Mayer v. Swift, 73 Tex. 367, 11 S. W. 378; Tufts v. Weinfeld, 88 Wis. 647, 60 N. W. 992].

10 Stewart v. Monad Engineering Co., 26 Del. 165, 84 Atl. 209 [affirming (Super) Monad Engineering Co. v. Stewart, 25 Del. 35, 79 Atl. 598].

11 Younger v. Hoge, 211 Mo. 444, IS L. R. A. (N.S.) 94, 111 S. W. 20.

12 Farwell v. Colonial Trust Co., 147 Fed. 480, 78 C. C. A. 22.

13 Lowry National Bank v. Hazard, 223 Pa. St. 520, 72 Atl. 889.

14 Friedman v. Pierce, 210 Mass. 419, 97 N. E. 82.

15 Blaul v. Wandel, 137 la. 301, 114 N. W. 899.

In the absence of facts raising a constructive trust, a mere promise to reconvey realty,24 or to hold in trust;25 to pay certain notes in consideration of a conveyance of realty;26 a promise to the vendee of a lot in an addition, that the entire tract will be restricted in the same manner as the tract which he purchases is restricted;27 or a promise not to enforce notes given by a purchaser of property except out of the proceeds of such property on a resale,28 do not, though broken, constitute fraud. If A requested B to fill out A's bid to the government, and B promises to treat such information as confidential, B's act in underbidding A was held not to give rise to any liability, since no consideration for such promise existed, and since the breach of a promise would not amount to fraud.29

16 Bromonia Co. v. Greenwood Drug Co., 78 S. Car. 482, 50 S. E. 363.

17 Bigelow v. Barnes, 121 Minn, 148, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 203, 140 N. W. 1032.

18 Jackson v. Jackson, 222 111. 46, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 785, 78 N. E. 19.

19 SculHn v. Newman, 127 Ark. 227, 191 S. W. 922; Seymour v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 181 la. 218, 164 N. W. 352; Smith v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co., 112 Miss. 878, 73 So. 801. (The attempt to treat the breach of such a promise as fraud is made to evade the parol evidence rule if the contract of compromise is in writing.) See ch. LXIX.

20 Fryar v. Hazelwood Holstein Farms, 97 Wash. 78, 165 Ac. 1084.

21 Fleming v. Gerlinger Motorcar Co., 86 Or. 195, 159 Ac. 1153, 168 Ac. 289.

22 Murray v. Reckwith, 48 111. 391. 23 Chamberlin v. Sanders, 268 111. 41,

108 N. E. 666.

24 Stacey v. Walter, 125 Ala. 291, 28 So. 89.

25 Lovett v. Taylor, 54 N. J. Eq. 311, 34 Att. 896.

26 Harrington v. Rutherford, 38 Fla. 321, 21 So. 283. (The grantee here re-conveyed to another, leaving the notes unpaid, himself being insolvent.)

27 Sprague v. Kimball, 213 Mass. 380, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 962, 100 N. E. 622.

28 State Bank v. Brown, 142 la. 190, 119 N. W. 81.

On the other hand, the statement of the creditor A, made to the debtor B, to induce him to sign a note which included C's indebtedness as well as B's, to the effect that it would be "the same with you if you sign one note as if there were two'," was said to be a fraudulent statement of fact that A would not hold B upon such note for C's indebtedness.30

In Pennsylvania, a breach of a contract which is an inducement to the transaction in question is spoken of as "fraud."31 In this jurisdiction, however, the parol evidence rule is far more limited in its operation than it is generally.32