An application of the doctrine that a promise made without the intention of keeping it may be fraud, is found in purchases of goods on credit. If one buys goods on credit, intending not to pay for them, this is held fraud,1 distinct from any false representations as to solvency,2 though the fraudulent intent is still clearer where there are false statements as to solvency,3 or where vendee conceals the fact that his property is mortgaged,4 or where property is concealed from creditors, though vendee is not insolvent.5

3 White Sewing Machine Co. v. Bul-lock, 161 N. Car. 1, 76 S. E. 634.

4 Norris v. Home City Lodge, - Mich. - , 168 N. W. 935. (In this case, however, the holder of an option who was guilty of such fraud, also represented himself as the agent of the owner.)

1 United States. Donaldson v. Far-well, 93 U. S. 631, 23 L. ed. 993; Fechheimer v. Baum, 37 Fed. 167, 2 L. R. A. 153; Giltespie v. Piles, 178 Fed. 886, 102 C. C. A. 120, 44 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1; In re Marks, 218 Fed. 453, 134 C. C. A. 253; Schroth v. Monarch Fence Co., 229 Fed. 549, 144 C. C. A. 9; In re Collins. 242 Fed. 975 [decree Affirmed, Jones v. H. M. Hobbie Grocery Co., 246 Fed. 431, 158 C. C. A. 495].

Alabama. Hudson v. Grocery Co., 105 Ala. 200, 16 So. 693; Maxwell v. Shoe Co., 114 Ala. 304, 21 So. 1009; Pelham v. Chattahoochee Grocery Co., 146 Ala. 216, 119 Am. St. Rep. 198 L. R. A. (N.S.) 448, 41 So. 121

Arkansas. Johnson Co. v. Triplett, 66 Ark, 233, 50 S. W. 455.

Colorado. Taub v. Commission Co., 10 Colo). App. 190, 51 Ac. 168.

Connecticut. Thompson v. Rose, 16 Conn. 71, 41 Am. Dec. 121.

Delaware. Freeman v. Topkis, 1 Marv. (Del.) 174, 40 Atl. 948.

District of Columbia. Samaha v. Mason, 27 D. C. App. 470.

Florida. Upchurch v. Mizell, 50 Fla. 456, 40 So. 29.

Illinois. People v. Healy, 128 111. 9, 15 Am. St. Rep. 90, 20 N. E. 692.

Indiana. Peninsular Stove Co. v. Ellis, 20 Ind. App. 491, 51 N. E. 105.

Iowa. P. B. Cox Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 105 la. 402, 75 N. W. 316.

Kentucky. Reager v. Kendall (Ky.), 39 S. W. 257; Lowry v. Hitch's Assignee (Ky.), 110 S. W. 833.

Maine. Atlas Shoe Co. v. Bechard, 102 Me. 197, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 245,

66 Atl. 390.

Massachusetts. Wiggin v. Day, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 97; Watson v. Silsby, 166 Mass. 57, 43 N. E. 1117; Phinney v. Friedman, 224 Mass. 531, 113 N. E. 285; Donovan v. Clifford, 225 Mass. 435, 114 N. E. 681.

Michigan. Edson v. Hudson, 83 Mich. 450, 47 N. W. 347.

Missouri Bidault v. Wales, 19 Mo. 36, 59 Am. Dec. 327; Reid v. Lloyd,

67 Mo. App. 513; Moore v. Hinsdale, 77 Mo. App, 217.

Nebraska. McCready v. Phillips, 56 Neb. 446, 76 N. W. 885.

New York. Nichols v. Michael, 23 N. Y. 264, 80 Am. Dec. 259; Whitten v. Fitzwater, 129 N. Y. 626, 29 N. E. 298.

In order to amount to fraud, the intention not to pay for the goods must exist at the time that the goods are purchased;6 and it must be an intent never to pay for the goods, and not merely an intent not to pay for them at the time specified in the contract.7

Giving a check in payment, intending to stop payment on the check, is fraud.8 Giving a check in order to obtain possession of the goods, intending that the check should not be paid and that when the seller brought an action thereon, the buyer would set off against such check certain notes given by the seller before he had gone into bankruptcy, is fraud.1

North Dakota. Ditton v. Purcell, 21 N. D. 648, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 149, 132 N. W. 347.

Ohio. Talcott v. Henderson,. 31 0. S. 162, 27 Am. Rep. 501; Wilmot v. Lyon, 49 O. S. 296, 34 N. E. 720; Luhrig Coal Co. v. Ludlum, 69 O. S. 311, 69 N. E. 562.

Rhode Island. Swift v. Rounds, 19 R. I. 527, 61 Am. St. Rep. 791, 33 L. R. A. 561, 35 Atl. 45.

Tennessee. Belding v. Franklin, 76 Tenn. (8 Lea) 67, 41 Am. Rep. 630; Wertheimer, etc., Shoe Co. v. Faris (Tenn. Ch. App.), 46 S. W. 336.

Texas. Williams v. Kohn (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 920; Avery v. Dickson (Tex. Civ. App.), 49 S. W. 662; Whit-aker v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 49 S. W. 1104.

Vermont. Redington v. Roberts, 25 Vt. 686.

Wisconsin. Lee v. Simmons, 65 Wis. 523, 27 N. W. 174. The remedy generally sought in these cases is to rescind the contract of sale informally by replevying the property.

This rule is said not to exist in Pennsylvania. Smith v. Smith, 21 Pa. St. 367, 60 Am. Dec. 51. But com-pare Bughman v. Bank, 159 Pa. St. 94, 28 Atl. 209; Perdue v. Taylor, 146 Pa. St. 163, 23 Atl. 317.

Apparently he must also be insolvent or in failing circumstances. Pel-ham v. Chattahoochee Grocery Co., 146

Ala. 216, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 448, 41 So. 12; Pelham v. Chattahoochee Grocery Co., 156 Ala. 500, 47 So. 172.

It has been said that there is no meeting of the minds in such a case. In re Hunter-Rand Co., 241 Fed. 175. Since goods sold under such a contract cannot be recovered from a bona fide purchaser, this explanation does not accord with the actual results of such fraud.

2 Johnson Co. v. Triplett, 66 Ark. 233, 50 S. W. 455; Peninsular Stove Co. v. Ellis, 20 Ind. App. 491, 51 N. E. 105; Reager v. Kendall (Ky.), 39 S. W. 257.

3 Fay v. Hill, 249 Fed. 415;Seeley v. Seeley-Howe-Le Van Co., 130 la. 626, 114 Am. St. Rep. 452, 105 N. W. 380; Richardson v. Vick, 125 Tenn. 532, 145 S. W. 174; Williams v. Kohn (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 920.

4 Edson v. Hudson, 83 Mich. 450, 47 N. W. 347.

5 Hudson v. Grocery Co., 105 Ala., 200, 16 So. 693.

6 Armstrong v. Lewis, 38 111. App. 164, Starr v. Stevenson, 91 la. 684, 60 N. W. 217; Ayers v. Farwell, 196 Mass. 349, 82 N. E. 35.

7 Armstrong v. Lewis, 38 111. App. 164; Strickland v. Willis (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. 602.

8 Robbins v. Wyman, 75 Wash. 617, 135 Ac. 656.