Co. v. Reger, 168 Pa. St. 644, 32 Atl. 64; Bank v. Rhea County (Tenn. Ch. App.), 59 S. W. 442. Thus a representation made after a contract for a lease is made but before the lease is given is not fraud. Oakford v. Hack-ley, 92 Fed. 38. A fafee statement made by A to a commercial agency before he buys of B, but not communicated by the agency to B till after the sale is made is not fraud: Manhattan Brass Co. v. Reger, 168 Pa. St. 644, 32 Atl. 64.

5 St. Vrain Stone Co. v. Ry. Co., 18 Colo. 211, 32 Ac. 827; Lilienthal v. Brewing Co., 154 Mass. 185, 26 Am. St. Rep. 234, 12 L. R. A. 821, 28 N. E. 151.

6 Bowman v. Carithers, 40 Ind. 90; City National Bank v. Hickox, 4 Johns (N. M.) 212, 16 Ac. 912. (Where he bought the land not believing vendor's representations, but because he could exchange diamonds therefor at a large profit.)

7 Haldom v. Ayer, 110 111. 448.

It was held that fraud did not exist where A represented to B that X, the maker of a note which B held, was solvent, and thereby induced him to accept such note in payment; A took it, not relying on B's representations but expecting to hold B as indorser, but omitted to notify B of the nonpayment of the note: Flanders v. Cobb, 88 Me. 488, 51 Am. St. Rep. 410, 34 Atl. 277.

8 Pritchard v. Dailey, 168 N. Car. 330, 84 S. E. 392.

9 United States. Richardson v. Walton, 49 Fed. 888; Hofman v. Keane, 64 Fed. 986; Nevada Nickel Syndicate v. Nickel Co., 96 Fed. 133..

Indiana. Lincoln v. Ragsdale, 9 Ind. App. 555, 37 N. E. 25.

Iowa. Simpson v. Kane, 98 la. 271, 67 N. W. 247; Noble v. Renner, 177 la. 509, 159 N. W. 214. (Vendee knows that river is cutting the bank away.)

Kentucky. Ferrill v. Coombs (Ky.), 18 S. W. 226; Anderson v. Black (Ky.), 32 S. W. 468; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Cleland (Ky.), 67 S. W. 386.

Maryland. Lewis v. Clark, 86 Md. 327, 37 Atl. 1035.

Minnesota. Michaud v. Eisenmon-ger, 46 Minn. 405, 49 N. W. 202; Marshall v. Gilman, 52 Minn. 88, 53 N. W. 811; Graham v. Burch. 53 Minn. 17, 55 N. W. 04; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301, 166 N. W. 347. (Contract shows that fraudulent promise will not be kept and promisee knows such fact.)

Missouri. Davis v. Ins. Co., 81 Mo. App. 264.

Nebraska. Murphy v. Bank, 57 Neb. 519, 77 N. W. 1102.

North Carolina. Conly v. Coffin, 115 N. Car. 563, 20 S. E. 207.

Ohio. Warner Elevator Co. v. Guthrie, 7 Ohio N. P. 200.

Pennsylvania. Davis v. Hawkins, 163 Pa. St. 228, 29 Atl. 746.

South Carolina. Baum v. Raley, 53 S. Car. 32, 30 S. E. 713.

Texas. Wright v. Mtge. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 1026.

Virginia. Cary v. Harris, 120 Va. 252, 91 S. E. 166.

Wisconsin. Allen v. Brooks, 88 Wis. 265, 60 N. W. 253.

See however, as to falsity shown by contract, which nevertheless amounts to fraud if the party who is subject to the fraud is also deceived as to the contents of the contract. McKinley Music Co. v. Glymph, 100 S. Car. 200, 84 S. E. 715.

10 Colton v. Stanford, 82 Cal. 351, 16 Am. St. Rep. 137, 23 Ac. 16; Ber-rendo Irrigated Farms Co. v. Jacobs, - N. M. - , 168 Ac. 483; Fargo, etc., Co. v. Fargo, etc., Co., 4 N. D. 219, 37 L. R A. 593, 59 N. W. 1066; Boyd v. Shiffer, 156 Pa St. 100, 27 Atl. 60.

11 Achilles v. Achilles, 137 111. 589, 28 N. E. 45; Scott v. Brusse, 148 Mich. 529, 112 N. W. 117; Boyd v. Sniffer, 156 Pa. St. 100, 27 Atl. 60.

12 Douda v. Ry. Co., 141 la. 82, 119 N. W. 272.

13 Where goods were sold C. O. D. and payments were made thereon credit obtained by defendant can not be said to have been obtained by reason of false representations made before the sale: Roscoe v. Sawyer, 71 Vt. 367, 45 Atl. 218.

14 Warner Elevator Co. v. Guthrie, 7 Ohio N. P. 200; Baum v. Raley, 53 S. Car. 32, 30 S. E. 713; Allen v. Brooks, 88 Wis. 265, 60 N. W. 253.

One to whom false statements are made and who believes them in spite of information to the contrary received from others, may

15 Davis v. Hawkins, 163 Pa. St. 228, 29 Atl. 746. (Where vendee knew that an agent who said that he had power of attorney to convey, had only verbal authority.)

16 Wright v. Mtge. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 1026.

17 Hofman v. Keane, 54 Fed. 086; Michaud v. Eisenmenger, 46 Minn. 405, 49 N. W. 202; Marshall v. Gilman, 52 Minn. 88, 53 N. W. 811; Mires v. Sum-mervill, 85 Mo. App. 183; May v. San Antonio, etc., Co., 83 Tex. 502, 18 S. W. 959.

18 Conly v. Coffin, 115 N. Car. 563, 20 S. E. 207. See Sec. 306.

19 Brown v. Smith, 109 Fed. 26. So as to the sale of a water right. San would be the effect of the representations which were made upon the mind of an ideal man taken as an absolute standard. This was usually said to be the reasonably prudent man.6 Even in tort the common law preferred to apply the test of the effect upon the specific individual.7 The common law is said to have applied this standard in contract law where the evidence showed that the party who sought relief was misled by the false statements.8 If, however, the evidence showed that such party was not misled by the false statements, the common law always applied the test of the effect of the false representations upon the mind of the party who sought relief, and not their effect upon the mind of the reasonably prudent man.9 Under the influence of modern standards of morality, borrowed in part from equity, and in part taken into the common law directly, there is a strong tendency to ignore the abstract and arbitrary standard of the reasonably prudent man and to test existence of fraud by the effect of the false statements upon the mind of the person to whom they were made.

Jose Ranch Co. v. Water Co., 132 Cal. 582, 64 Ac. 1097.

20 Ferrill v. Coomby (Ky.), 18 S. W. 226.

21 Richardson v. Walton, 49 Fed. 888; Anderson v. Black (Ky.), 32 S. W. 468.

22 Lewis v. Clark, 86 Md. 327, 37 Atl. 1035.

23 Southard v. Arkansas Valley & W. Ry Co., 24 Okla. 408, 103 Ac. 750.