In some cases the principle that a promise may amount to fraud made without the intention of performing it has been extended to statements as to the terms on which the adversary party will enter into the contract, although such statements are threats rather than promises.1 A statement that a railway will not be constructed through a certain town unless subscriptions from such town are made to such railway, when in fact the railway intends to go through such town in any event, has been held to be fraud.2 A statement by X, a traveling salesman of A, which is made to B in order to induce B to order a large number of sewing machines, to the effect that C,

433; Bethell v. Bethell, 92 Ind. 318; Balue v. Taylor, 136 Ind. 368, 36 N. E. 269; Ayres v. Blevins, 28 Ind. App. 101, 62 N. E. 305.

Maine. Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49; Dawe v. Morris. 149 Mass. 188, 14 Am. St. Rep. 404, 4 L. R. A. 158, 21 N. E. 313 (semble; though there was no direct averment or proof of intent not to perform).

Missouri. Younger v. Hoge, 211 Mo. 444, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 94, 111 S. W. 20.

Tennessee. A. Landreth Co. v. Schev-enel, 102 Tenn. 486, 52 S. W. 148.

2 A. Landreth Co. v. Schevenel, 102 Tenn. 486, 52 S. W. 148 [citing Richter v. Irwin, 28 Ind. 26; Feret v. Hill, 15

C. B. 207; distinguishing Gross v. McKee, 53 Miss. 536].

3 Miller v. Sutliff, 241 111. 521, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 736, 89 N. E. 651.

4 Sweet v. Kimball, 166 Mass. 332, 55 Am. St. Rep. 406, 44 N. E. 243.

8 Sweet v. Kimball, 160 Mass. 332, 55 Am. St. Rep. 406, 44 N. E. 243.

1 Norris v. Home City Lodge, - Mich. - , 168 N. W. 935; Crawford v. Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City R. R. Co., 83 Miss. 708, 36 So. 82; Cooper v. Ft. Smith & Western Ry., 23 Okla. 139, 99 Ac. 785.

2 Crawford v. Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City R. R. Co., 83 Miss. 708, 36 So. 82; Cooper v. Ft. Smith & Western R. R. Co., 23 Okla. 139, 99 Ac. 785.

who had been the former local agent of A, had only three machines on hand and who would not receive or sell any more, when in fact C had just bought one hundred machines, and had more than one hundred machines on hand, is fraudulent.3 A statement as to the lowest price for which the owner of certain property will sell it has been held to be fraud.4