Even where disclosure is not required, a partial disclosure in such form as to mislead the party to whom it is made constitutes fraud.1 Thus a disclosure to a vendee of stock, of the names of existing subscribers without disclosing that one of them has subscribed conditionally,2 or is to have his stock for nothing;3 a statement as to the location and condition of realty made by the vendee to the vendor, omitting certain facts which add to its value;4 a statement to B of C's financial condition omitting to disclose C's indebtedness to A;5 a statement by A of the existence of one lien on his property, A omitting to disclose the existence of fifteen others;6 a representation by A of his share in his father's estate, A omitting to disclose that he had received his share in advancements daring his father's lifetime;7 a disclosure of title to realty, without disclosing the insanity of a grantor in the chain of title,8 or the pendency of an action to review a judgment on which the title to the realty is based;9 a statement by a woman on becoming engaged, that she had obtained a divorce from her husband for his aggression, she omitting to disclose that he had also obtained a divorce upon a cross-bill charging cruelty and profanity;10 a statement by A to B, C's wife, showing that C was likely to be arrested for debt, but not disclosing that such arrest was not imminent, and thereby, knowing such belief, inducing B to secure such debt at once, without opportunity for deliberation;11 or a disclosure of a defect in an animal, omitting to disclose a similar defect,12 have each been held to amount to fraud. So where A had agreed to sell realty to B for a cash payment, A to waive his lien for the purchase price and to allow B to borrow a sum of money from X with which B and X had agreed that such realty should be improved, it was held fraud for B and X to omit to disclose to A that the cash payment made by B to A came out of the money loaned by X to B.13

Va. 455. (Thereby acquiring the land for four per cent, of what one bidder offered to start the sale on when the existence of the cavern was discovered.)

11 Gruber v. Baker, 20 Nev. 453, 0 L. R. A. 302, 23 Ac. 858.

12 Tooker v. Alston, 159 Fed. 599, 86 C. C. A. 425, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 818.

13 Long v. Inhabitants, of Athol, 196 Mass. 497, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 96, 82 N. . 665.

14 George v. Johnson, 25 Tenn. (6 Humph.) 36, 44 Am. Dec. 288.

15 United States. Stewart v. Ranche Co., 128 U. S. 383, 32 L. ed. 439.

California. Roseman v. Canovan, 43 Cal. 110.

Illinois. Kenner v. Harding, 85 111. 264, 28 Am. Rep. 615.

Kentucky. Singleton v. Kennedy, 48 Ky. (9 B. Mon.) 222.

Vermont. Howard v. Gould, 28 Vt. 523, 67 Am. Dec. 728.

Virginia. Merchants' Bank v. Campbell, 75 Va. 455.

16 Bowman v. Bates, 5 Ky. (2 Bibb.) 47, 4 Am. Dec. 677; Gottschalk v. Kircher, 109 Mo. 170, 17 S. W. 905;

Clark v. Clark, 55 N. J. Eq. 814, 42 Atl. 98.

1 United States. Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Martin, 222 Fed. 851, 138 C. C. A. 27T.

Indiana. Craig v. Hamilton, 118 Ind. 565, 21 N. E. 315.

Iowa. Coles v. Kennedy, 81 la. 360, 25 Am. St. Rep. 503, 46 N. W. 1068.

Massachusetts. Short v. Currier, 159 Mass. 182, 26 N. E. 444; Burns v. Dockray, 156 Mass. 135, 30 N. E. 551.

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

Missouri. Traber v. Hicks, 131 Mo. 180, 32 S. W. 1145.

New Jersey. Clark v. Clark, 55 N. J. Eq. 814, 42 Atl. 98.

New York. Devoe v. Brandt, 53 N. Y. 462; Haviland v. Willets, 141 N. Y. 35, 35 N. E. 958.

Ohio. Manley v. Carl, 11 Ohio C. D. 1.

Wisconsin. Remington Sewing Machine Co. v. Kezertee, 49 Wis. 409, 0 N. W. 809.

2 Zaber v. Telephone Co., 127 Mich. 402, 86 N. W. 949.