Where the promise is made without any intent on promisor's part to keep it, but to induce action on the part of promisee, it is held in many jurisdictions to be fraud,1 on the theory

Washington. Clutter v. Strange, 41 Wash. 86, 82 Ac. 1028. See Sec. 1371 et seq.

2 Wood v. Rabe, 96 N. Y. 414, 48 Am. Rep. 640.

Contra: Haenni v. Bleisch, 146 111. 262, 34 N. E. 153 (between father and daughter).

3 Nordholt v. Nordholt, 87 Cal. 552, 22 Am. St. Rep. 268, 26 Ac. 599.

4 Cetenich v. Fuvich, - R. I. - , 102 Atl. 817; Richardson v. Adams, 16 Tenn. (10 Yerg.) 273.

5 Brison v. Brison, 75 Cal. 525, 7 Am. St. Rep. 189, 17 Ac. 689; same case, 90 Cal. 323, 27 Ac. 186.

6 Leach v. Gray, - Ala. - , 77 So. 341 (guardian); Alaniz v. Casenave, 91 Cal. 41, 27 Ac. 521 (husband of niece); MacDermot v. Hayes, 175 Cal. 95, 170 Ac. 616 (agent).

7 See Sec. 1371 et seq.

1 United States. In re Hunter-Rand Co., 241 Fed. 175; In re Collins, 242 Fed. 975 [decree affirmed, Jones v. H. M. Hobbie Grocery Co., 246 Fed. 431, 158 C. C. A. 495]; Fay v. Hill, 249 Fed. 415.

Alabama. Ansley v. Bank, 113 Ala.

467, 59 Am. St. Rep. 122, 21 So. 59; Clarkson v. Pruett, - Ala. - , 79 So. 194.

California. Lawrence v. Gayetty, 78 Cal. 126, 12 Am. St. Rep. 29, 20 Ac. 382; Rubs, etc., Co. v. Water Co., 120 Cal. 521, 65 Am. St. Rep. 186, 52 Ac. 995; Matteson v. Wagoner, 147 Cal.

739, 82 Ac. 436.

Connecticut. Ayers v. French, 41 Conn. 142; Dowd v. Tucker, 41 Conn. 197.

Illinois. Murray v. Tolman, 162 111. 417, 44 N. E. 748.

Iowa. Oakey v. Ritchie, 69 la. 69, 28 N. W. 448; Stout v. Stout, 165 la. 552, L. R. A. 1915A, 711, 164 N. W. 474; Mulroney Mfg. Co. v. Weeks, 171 N. W. 36.

Kansas. Green v. Green, 34 Kan.

740, 52 Am. Rep. 256, 10 Ac. 156; Lancaster National Bank v. Mackey, 5 Kan. App. 437, 49 Ac. 324.

Michigan. Wilson v. Eggleston, 27 Mich. 257; Munzer v. Stern, 105 Mich. 523, 55 Am. St. Rep. 468, 29 L. R. A. 859, 63 N. W. 513; Gibbs v. Mintline, 175 Mich. 626,141 N. W. 538.

Minnesota. Cox v. Edwards, 120 that the intent of the party promising is a material fact.2 Where a wife induces her husband to convey property to her, meaning to abandon him when the conveyance is delivered;3 or where A promises to marry B without intending to do so, in order to induce B to make a conveyance to A;4 where A induces B to buy and pay for certain property by having C promise B to buy it from him at an advance;5 where A represents to B that a lease will be given for certain property;6 where A promises to deliver a specified brand of goods in performance of the contract, intending not to deliver such brand;7 where a promise is made to furnish such proofs of pedigree as will make it possible to register horses sold;8 or to reorganize an insolvent corporation;9 or to reconvey property on demand;10 or when certain rock has been removed therefrom;1!1 or to pay a certain sum to grantor's children at grantor's death,12 to furnish permanent employment;13 that the manufacturer would establish a permanent agency for the distribution of his merchandise;14 that the promisee shall have an exclusive agency for the sale of the promisor's merchandise;15 or where A obtains from B an instrument unenforceable between the parties, by promising not to transfer it, but intending to transfer it to a bona fide holder and cut off B's defense,16 without intent to keep any of such promises, they were held to be fraud. So a promise by an agent as an inducement to a contract of sale that the principal would advance money to harvest the crop sold, the agent having no reasonable ground of expecting that the principal would make the advance, is fraud.17 A statement that the principal debtor would use the loan to buy property, when in fact he meant to use it to pay an antecedent debt, is fraud when a surety is thereby induced to sign a note.18 Where a borrower promises to use a loan in discharging a prior lien, fraud exists if he does not intend so to use it.19 A promise to pay a note out of a certain fund which the debtor was to receive in the future, by which an extension of time is secured, the debtor not intending to pay it out of such fund, is fraud.20 A representation by the agent of a railroad as to the time which a given trip would take is fraudulent where he knows that owing to an accident on a connecting road such trip can not be thus made.21 If A sells stock in a corporation to B, representing that B can have a position with such corporation at a specified salary when A knows that B will not be accepted, such representation is fraud.22 If A sold a stallion to B and C by stating that A and others were forming a corporation to acquire such stallion and that B and the other purchasers would not be liable on such contract until such corporation was formed, and A does not perform such promise, the purchasers may avoid such contract for fraud.23 If A enters into a contract by which he agrees to convey certain realty to B, in reliance upon B 's promise to transfer to A an option on certain land if B did not decide to buy it himself, and if B had already, in fact, formed the intention of buying such tract himself, A may resist specific performance on the ground of fraud.24

Minn. 512, 139 N. W. 1070; Holmes v. Wilkes, 130 Minn. 170, 153 N. W. 308; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301, 166 N. W. 347.

Mississippi. Gross v. McKee, 53 Miss. 536.

Nebraska. Pollard v. McKenney, 69 Neb. 742, 96 N. W. 679.

New Hampshire. Goodwin v. Horne, 60 N. H. 485.

North Carolina. White Sewing Machine Co. v. Bullock, 161 N. Car. 1, 76 S. E. 634.

Ohio. American Hosiery Co. v. Baker, 18 Ohio C. C. 604.

Oregon. Koehler v. Dennison, 72 Or. 362, 143 Ac. 649.

Pennsylvania. Williams v. Kerr, 152 Pa. St. 560, 25 Atl. 618; Corn Exchange National Bank v. Solicitors', etc., Co., 188 Pa. St. 330, 68 Am. St. Rep. 872, 41 Atl. 536.

Texas. Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Titter-ington, 84 Tex. 218, 31 Am. St.Rep. 39, 19 S. W. 472; Cearley v. May (Tex.) 167 S. W. 725; Detroit Electrical Works v. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 412; Touchstone v. Staggs (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 189; McFar-land v. McGill, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 298, 41 S. W. 402.