A statement as to what will happen in the future is clearly a matter of opinion, not of fact.1 A statement that the capitol would be located near the realty which was offered for sale,2 or as to the profits that would be made, or dividends that would be declared in a given business,3 will not amount to fraud; at least if the seller did not know the falsity of such predictions.4 A statement that "you will make 60 cents on the dollar" and "the business is all right";5 or a statement as to the future profits of a mine;6 or a statement that a mine was rich in silver, that the ore on the dump would pay the value of the stock, and that large dividends would be paid;7 statements as to the number of fish that would be caught;8 as to the future growth of a town;9 as to the number of men that would be employed in industries near the land sold;10 that a factory would turn out a certain amount of product per day if repairs were made on the machinery, at least if such statement is made to one who knows what the output of such factory has been in the past, and who has an opportunity to investigate the machinery;11 that a certain person was about to become a partner;12 that a corporation would be able to raise certain

32Oestreich v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minn. & Omaha Ry. Co., 140 Minn. 280, 167 N. W. 1032.

33 See Sec. 420.

34 United States. Stewart v. Ranche Co., 128 U. S. 383, 32 L. ed. 439; Reeves v. Coming, 51 Fed. 774.

California. Cruess v. Fessler, 30 Cal. 336.

Illinois. Allen v. Hart, 72 111. 104.

Massachusetts. Cheney v. Gleason, 125 Mass. 166.

Michigan. Picard v. McCormick, 11 Mich. 68; Nowlin v. Snow, 40 Mich. 690; Moon v. McKinstry, 107 Mich. 668, 65 N. W. 546.

New York. Simar v. Canaday, 53 N. Y. 298, 13 Am. Rep. 523; Hickey v. Morrell, 102 N. Y. 454, 55 Am. Rep. 824, 7 N. E. 321.

Wisconsin. Warner v. Benjamin, 89 Wis. 290, 62 N. W. 179.

1 United States. Vandervelden v. Ry. Co., 61 Fed. 54; Green v. Societe, etc., 81 Fed. 64; Hansen v. Baltimore, etc., Co., 86 Fed. 832; Wagner v. Ins. Co., 90 Fed. 395.

California. Lawrence v. Gayetty, 78 Cal. 126, 12 Am. St. Rep. 29, 20 Ac. 382.

Illinois. Brady v. Cole, 164 111. 116, 45 N. E. 438; Burwash v. Ballou, 230 111. 34, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 409, 82 N. E. 355; Emmerson v. Hutchinson, 63 111. App. 203.

Indiana. Conant v. Bank, 121 Ind. 323, 22 N. E. 250.

Iowa. Sweney v. Davidson, 68 la. 386, 27 N. W. 278; Swan v. Mathre, 103 la. 261, 72 N. W. 522.

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

Massachusetts. Knowlton v. Keenan,

146 Mass. 86, 4 Am. St. Rep. 282, 15 N. E. 127; Federal Coal & Coke Co. v. Coryell, 223 Mass. 430, 111 N. E. 1041; Brown v. Pierce, 229 Mass. 44, 118 N. E. 266.

Michigan. John. D. Gruber Co. v. Smith, 195 Mich. 336, 162 N. W. 124.

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

Mississippi Alabama, etc, Ry. Co. v. Turnbull, 71 Miss, 1029, 16 So. 346.

New York. Kelly v. Gould, 141 N. Y. 596, 36 N. E. 320; Kley v. Healy, 149 N. Y. 346, 44 N. E. 150.

North Carolina. Williamson v. Holt,

147 N. Car. 515, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.)240, 61 S. E. 384.

Oregon. Henrickson v. Hillsboro Garden Tracts, 78 Or. 96, 152 Ac. 495.

2 Ames v. Milam, 53 Okla. 739, 157 Ac. 941; Sanborn v. Plowman, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 95, 35 S. W. 193; Watkins v. Land, etc., Co., 92 Va. 1, 22 S. E. 554; Land, etc., Co. v. Brady, 92 Va. 71, 22 S. E. 845; West Seattle, etc., Co. v. Herren, 16 Wash. 665, 48 Ac. 341.

3 Colorado. Beard v. Bliley, 3 Colt). App. 479, 34 Ac. 271.

Georgia. Weston v. Ry. Co., 90 Ga. 289, 15 S. E. 773; Terhune v. Coker, 107 Ga. 352, 33 S. E. 394.

Illinois. Mumford v. Tolman, 157 III. 258, 41 N. E. 617 [affirming 54 111. App. 471]; but see Musick v. Gatz-meyer, 47 111. App. 329; Brady v. Cole, 164 111. 116, 45 N. E. 438; Crocker v. Manley, 164 III. 282, 56 Am. St. Rep. 196, 45 N. E. 577.

Iowa. Davis v. Campbell, 93 la. 524, 61 N. W. 1053; Swan v. Mathre, 103 la. 261, 72 N. W. 522; State Bank v. Mentzer, 125 la. 101, 100 N. W. 69.

Maryland. Robertson v. Parks, 76 Md. 118, 24.Atl. 411.

Massachasetts. Pedrick v. Porter, 87 Mass. (5 All.), 324.

Michigan. Western Electric Co. v.* Hart. 103 Mich. 477, 61 N. W. 867.

Mississippi. Walker v. Ry. Co., 34 Miss. 245.

Nebraska. Markel v. Moudy, 11 Neb. 213. 7 N. W. 853.

Ohio. Belmont Mining Co. v. Rogers, 10 Ohio C. C. 305, 3 Ohio Dec. 453.

Texas. Riley v. Treanor (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 1054.

Wisconsin. Warner v. Benjamin, 89 Wis. 290, 62 N. W. 179; Spence v. Geil-fuse, 89 Wis. 499, 62 N. W. 529.

4 Crosby v. Emerson, 142 Fed. 713.

5 In Terhune v. Coker, 107 Ga. 352, 33 S. E. 394, the court said, "The loose statement that the business was 'all right' can not be regarded as equivalent to a positive declaration that the corporation was a perfectly solvent and paying concern. Mere 'puffing' does not constitute legal fraud, the same not being calculated to really mislead a purchaser, especially when he is afforded a full opportunity to form his own independent opinion as to the advisability of becoming a purchaser." But a statement concerning future dividends purporting to be based on the present condition and past history of the corporation may be fraud: Beck-with v. Ryan, 66 Conn. 589, 34 Atl. 488.

6 Burwash v. Ballou, 230 III. 34, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 409, 82 N. E. 355.

7 Crocker v. Manley, 164 111. 282, 56 Am. St. Rep. 196, 45 N. E. 577.

8 Hansen v. Baltimore, etc., Co., 86 Fed. 832.

9 West Seattle, etc., Co. v. Herren, 16 Wash. 665, 48 Ac. 341.

10 Land, etc., Co. v. Brady, 92 Va. 71, 22 S. E. 845.

11 Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. Car. 515, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 240, 61 S. E. 384.

12 Kley v. Healy, 149 N. Y. 346, 44 N. E. 150.

funds;13 or that certain improvements would be made on adjoining land;14 or that certain articles could be put on the market at a certain price;15 or that the principal debtor would discharge the note and free the surety from all liability;16 or that a third person would pay a given debt;17 that a voting contest will be a failure;18 that a certain outfit of tractors and plows will plow a certain number of acres during the spring in which the sale is made,19 are each mere predictions, and hence, matters of opinion only. Whether such statements are a part of the contract is, of course, a different question.20