Many statements are made on which persons in practical life rely, on which they have no right in law to rely, since they are not statements of facts. Where a statement is merely a conclusion from facts in the knowledge of both parties, it is the opinion of the one expressing it, and even if untrue can not be fraud.1 Certain statements, no matter how strongly made,

61 Dickereon v. Thomas, 67 Miss. 777, 7 So. 503.

62 Kathan v. Comstock, 140 Wis. 427, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 201, 122 N. W. 1044.

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

64 Hirschfield v. Railway Co., 2 Q. B. D. 1.

65 Kitchen v. Long, 67 Fla. 72, L. R. A. 1917C, 617, 64 So. 429.

1 United States. Reeves v. Corning, 51 Fed. 774; Hansen v. Packing Co., 86 Fed. 832; Patten v. Glatz, 87 Fed. 283; Dotson v. Kirk, 180 Fed. 14, 103 C. C. A. 368; Bry Block Mercantile Co. v. Columbia Portrait Co., 219 Fed. 710, 135 C. C. A. 382.

Alabama. Bradfield v. Land Co., 93 Ala. 527, 8 So. 383; Birmingham, etc., Co. v. Land Co., 93 Ala. 549, 9 So. 236;

Griel v. Lomax, 94 Ala. 641, 10 So. 232; Piedmont, etc., Co. v. Machine Co., 96 Ala. 389, 11 So. 332.

Arkansas. Parker v. Boyd, 108 Ark. 32, 156 S. W. 440.

California. Nounnan v. Land Co., 81 Cal. 1, 6 L. R. A. 219, 22 Ac. 515; Holton v. Noble, 83 Cal. 7, 23 Ac. 58; Lloyd v. Kehl, 132 Cal. 107, 64 Ac. 125.

Georgia. Wrenn v. Truitt, 116 Ga. 708, 43 S. E. 52.

Illinois. Miller v. Young, 33 111. 354; Endsley v. Johns, 120 111. 469, 60 Am. Rep. 572, 12 N. E. 247; Burwash v. Ballou, 230 III. 34, 82 N. E. 355; Wightman v. Tucker, 50 III. App. 75.

Iowa. Eastern Granite Co. V. Heim, 89 la. 698, 57 N. W. 437; Kelty v. McPeake, 143 la. 567, 121 N. W. 529.

Kentucky. Morse v. Duryea, 174 Ky. 234, 192 S. W. 477.

show on their face that they are merely opinions.2 A false statement as to when shares in a building and loan association will reach their full value and what the rate of interest will be.3 A's statement that certificates in an investment company which A knew to be unsound financially and to be conducting an illegal business would mature regularly; 4 or a statement as to the amount of surplus that would accrue on an insurance policy;5 a statement of the amount unpaid on a bond, where such amount is a matter of calculation from facts known to both parties;6 a statement that a bond sold was an "A No. 1 bond" and that "the railroad was good security";7 that the security would be insufficient without a certain signature;8 that a breeding stallion would not beget sorrel colts;9 or as to his capacity to beget foals;10 that certain willow-cuttings would live;11 a representation as to the quantity of apples that an orchard bore and that it was cheap at the rent;l2 that the fruit on the farm would pay for the farm the first year;13 that a certain stream would develop a certain horse power;14 that certain machinery to be constructed, would produce certain results, if not made by one having special knowledge thereof;15 that a secondhand machine was as good as new and would develop a certain horse power;16 that a machine offered for sale is superior to the one which the prospective purchaser has beep using;17 as to the work that a machine, which was known not to operate successfully, would be able to do with certain repairs;18 the steam pressure and power of one boiler as compared with another;19 as to the cost of making repairs;20 that the coal which was offered for sale would burn brick;21 that Balzac's works were "books that children would love to read";22 that the purchaser of picture frames would be able to charge its customers a profit upon such frames sufficient to repay it for the entire cost of the advertising scheme,23 are each merely expressions of opinion.

Maine. Doylestown Agricultural Co. v. Brackett, Shaw & Lunt Co., 100 Me. 301, 84 Atl. 146.

Massachusetts. Barnard v. Coffin, 138 Mass. 37.

Michigan. Draft v. Hesselsweet, 194 Mich. 604, 161 N. W. 864.

Missouri. Wade v. Ringo, 122 Mo. 322, 25 S. W. 901; Saunders v. McClin-tock, 46 Mo. App. 216.

Nebraska. Esterly Harvesting, etc., Co. v. Berg, 52 Neb. 147, 71 N. W. 952; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Milliken, 62 Neb. 116, 86 N. W. 913; Odell v. Story, 81 Neb. 437, 116 N. W. 269.

New York. Ellis v. Andrews, 56 N. Y. 83, 15 Am. Rep. 379.

Ohio. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Reed, 33 O. S. 283; Curran v. Hauser, 4 Ohio Dec 449.

Oklahoma. Coley v. Dore, 56 Okla. 443, 156 Ac. 164.

Oregon. Clearwater v. Forrest, 72 Or. 312, 143 Ac. 998; Wicks v. Met-calf, 83 Or. 687, 163 Ac. 988 [denying rehearing Wicks v. Metcalf, 83 Or. 687, 163 Ac. 4341.

Texas; Barrett v. Featherstone, 89 Tex. 567, 36 S. W. 245 [affirming (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 11].

Virginia. Rorer Iron Co. v. Trout, 83 Va. 397, 5 Am. St Rep. 285, 2 S. E. 713.

Washington. Aurora Land Co. v. Keevan, 67 Wash. 305, 121 Ac. 469.

West Virginia. McCormick v. Jordan, 65 W. Va. 86, 63 S. E. 778; Poole v. Camden, 79 W. Va. 310, L. R. A. 1917E, 988, 92 S. E. 454.

Wisconsin. Fowler v. McCann, 86 Wis. 427, 56 N. W. 1085; Fromer, etc., Co. v. Stanley, 95 Wis. 56, 69 N. W. 820; Miranovitz v. Gee, 163 Wis. 246, 157 N. W. 790.

In Alabama an erroneous opinion is no ground for rescission unless intentionally false: Bradfield v. Land Co., 93 Ala. 527, 8 So. 383; Birmingham, etc., Co. v. Land Co., 93 Ala. 549, 9 So. 235; Piedmont, etc., Co. v. Machine Co., 96 Ala. 389, 11 So. 332; Cooke v. Cook, 100 Ala. 175, 14 So. 171.

Apparently so in Michigan: French v. Ryan, 104 Mich. 625, 62 N. W. 1016.

2 Johnson v. Loan Association, 125 Ala. 465, 82 Am. St. Rep. 257, 28 So. 2.

3 Myers v. Loan Association, 117 Mich. 389, 75 N. W. 944; Hunter, v. Loan Association, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 453, 59 S. W. 596.

4 Smith v. Corbin, 135 Ky. 727, 123 S. W. 277.

5 Livermore v. Town-Lands Co., 106 Ky. 140, 50 S. W. 6; Donoho v. Assurance Society, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 192, 54 S. W. 645 [citing Little v. Allen, 56 Tex. 133; Jackson v. Stockbridge, 29 Tex. 394; Gordon v. Butler, 105 U. S. 553, 26 L. ed. 1166; Sawyer v. Prickett, 86 U. S. (19 Wall.) 146, 22 L. ed. 105; Southern Development Co. v. Silva, 125 V. S. 247, 31 L. ed. 678; Page v. Bent, 43 Mass. (2 Met.) 371-3741.

6 Banfield v. Banfield, 24 Or. 571, 34 Ac., 659.

7 Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504, 2 L.R.A. 743, 20 N. E. 107.

8 Wicks v. Metcalf, 83 Or. 687, 163 Ac. 988 [denying rehearing Wicks v. Metcalf, 83 Or. 687, 163 Ac. 434].

9 Rcroggin v. Wood, 87 la. 407, 54 N. W. 437.

10 Oltman v. Williams, 167 N. Car. 312, 83 S. E. 348.

11 Pike v. Fay, 101 Mass. 134.

12 Merritt v. Dufue, 99 la. 211, 68 N. W. 553. So, Holton v. Noble, 83 Cal. 7, 23 Ac. 58; but see Sec. 200 as to a similar statement as to the amount of hay cut.

13 Draft v. Hesselsweet, 194 Mich. 604, 161 N. W. 864.

14 Lloyd v. Kehl, 132 Cal. 107, 64 Ac. 125. (The statement not being made by an hydraulic expert.)

15 American Soda Fountain Co. v. Spring Water Carbonating Co., 207 Mass. 488, 93 N. E. 801.

16 Gaar v. Halverson, 128 la. 603, 105 N. W. 108.

17 Fuchs & Lang Mfg. Co. v. Kitt-redge, 242 111. 88, 89 N. E. 723.

18 Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. Car. 515, 61 S. E. 384.

19 Detroit Shipbuilding Co. v. Corn-stock, 144 Mich. 516, 108 N. W. 286.

20 Aurora Land Co. v. Keevan, 67 Wash. 305, 121 Ac. 469.

21 Woolridge v. Brown, 149 N. Car. 299, 62 S. E. 1076.

22 Barrie v. Jerome, 112 111. App. 329.

23 Bry Block Mercantile Co. v. Col- umbia Portrait Co., 219 Fed. 710, 135 C. C. A. 382.

A statement of opinion as to the possible use of realty for building,24 or the area,25 or title to realty, the facts being known, from which either party could deduce an opinion,26 can not be fraud. If a contract is entered into by which A agrees to furnish to B gas enough to operate at least a twelve pot glass plant, A could not have relied upon an alleged representation made by B to the effect that such plant would not require more than eight million feet of gas per month.27 If the amount of ore in a mine is visible to both parties, the fact that the seller overestimates the amount, does not amount to fraud, since it is a mere statement of opinion.28 A statement as to the quality of land;29 as to the extent to which a tract of land is underlaid with a certain vein of coal;30 that a cellar under a house is healthy;31 or that a ditch would be constructed which would irrigate the land which was the subject of the contract of sale,32 are each of them statements of opinion.