Ordinarily when both parties stand on equal footing and the material facts are equally accessible to both, a statement as to the value of property must be known to be a mere matter of opinion and therefore not fraud.1 Thus, where both parties have equal means for ascertaining the material facts, a statement as to the value of realty,2 or the amount for which it will rent,3 or the value of a business,4 or that a patent is valid5 or valuable6 or useful,7 or that bonds8 or stocks9 are valu-

581, 594, 26 L. R. A. 148, 38 N. E. 718; Sinnott v. Bank, 164 N. Y. 386, 58 N. E. 286.

Ohio. Talcott v. Henderson, 31 0. S. 162, 27 Am. Rep. 501; Pike v. Bank, 2 Ohio Dec. 283, 1 Ohio N. P. 323 [affirming 2 Ohio Dec. 3, 1 Ohio N. P. 205].

Tennessee. Hallacher v. Henlein (Tenn. Ch. App.) 39 S. W. 869; Rome, etc., Co. v. Walling (Tenn. Ch. App.), 58 S. W. 1094.

Texas. Walsh v. Hardware Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. Wr. 630.

Wisconsin. Adler v. Thorp, 102 Wis. 70, 78 N. W. 184.

3 Johnston v. Brent, 93 Ala. 160, 9 So. 581; Diggs v. Denny, 86 Md. 116, 37 Atl. 1037.

4 Coppage v. Murphy (Ky.) 68 S. W. 416.

1 United States. Gordon v. Butler, 105 U. S. 553, 26 L. ed. 1166.

Alabama. Mertins v. Hubbell Publishing Co., 190 Ala. .311, 67 So. 275.

California. Rendell v. Scott, 70 Cal. 514, 11 Ac. 779; Lion v. McClory, 106 Cal. 623, 40 Ac. 12.

Colorado. Fraser v. Walker, - Colo. - , 173 Ac. 1088; People v. Tynon, 2 Colo. App. 131, 29 Ac. 809; Mayo v. Wahlgreen, 9 Colo. App. 506, 50 Ac. 40.

Connecticut. Gustafson v. Ruste-meyer, 70 Conn. 125, 66 Am. St. Rep. 92, 39 L. R. A. 644, 39 Atl. 104.

District of Colombia. Patterson v. Barrie, 30 D. C. App. 531.

Illinois. Moore v. Recek, 163 111. 17, 44 N. E. 868; Krankowski v. Knapp, 268 111. 183, 108 N. E. 1006; Consolidated, etc., R. R. Co. v. O'Neill, 25 111. App. 313; Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Bush, 35 111. App. 213; Strub-har v. Shorthose, 78 111. App. 394.

Indiana. Harness v. Home, 20 Ind. App. 134, 50 N. E. 395.

Iowa. Bossingham v. Syck, 118 la. 192, 91 N. W. 1047.

Kentucky. Chambers v. Education Society, 40 Ky. (1 B. Man.) 222; Kenton Ins. Co. v. Wigginton, 89 Ky. 330, 7 L. R. A. 81, 12 S. W. 668; Seng v. Keller (Ky.) 37 S. W. 581; Soharn v. Gibson, 118 Ky. 403, 80 S. W. 1173; Bentley v. Stewart, 180 Ky. 23, 201 S. W. 978.

Massachusetts. Parker v. Moulton, 114 Mass. 99, 19 Am. Rep. 315; Morse v. Shaw, 124 Mass. 59; Homer v. Perkins, 124 Mass. 431, 26 Am. Rep. 677; Lynch v. Murphy, 171 Mass. 307, 50 N. E. 623.

Michigan. Johnson v. Seymour, 79 Mich. 156, 44 N. W. 344; Hammer v. Martin, 171 N. W. 419.

Minnesota. Columbia Electric Co. v. Dixon, 46 Minn. 463, 49 N. W. 244.

Missouri. Cottrill v. Krum, 100 Mo. 397,. 18 Am. St. Rep. 549, 13 S. W. 753; Cornwall v. Real Estate Co., 150 Mo. 377, 51 S. W. 736.

Nebraska. McKnight v. Thompson, 39 Neb. 752, 58 N. W. 453; Canon v. Bank (Neb.), 91 N. W. 585.

New York. Ellis v. Andrews, 56 N. Y. 83, 15 Am. Rep. 379; Chrysler v. Canaday, 90 N. Y. 272, 43 Am. Rep. 166.

North Dakota. Heald v. Yumisko, 7 N. D. 422, 75 N. W. 806.

Oklahoma. Wyrick v. Campbell, - Okla. - , 170 Ac. 267.

Oregon. Elgin v. Snyder, 60 Or. 297, 118 Ac. 280.

Rhode Island. Handy v. Waldron, 18 R. I. 567, 49 Am. St. Rep. 794, 29 Atl. 143.

Tennessee. Maney v. Porter, 22 Tenn. (3 Humph.) 347; Long v. Gilbert (Tenn. Ch. App.), 59 S. W. 414.

Texas. Adams v. Pardue (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 1015.

Utah. Whitney v. Richards, 17 Utah 226, 53 Ac. 1122.

Vermont. Shanks v. Whitney, 66 Vt. 405, 29 Atl. 367.

West Virginia. Billups v. Montene-gro-Reihms Music Co., 69 W. Va. 15, 70 S. E. 779.

Wisconsin. Mosher v. Post, 89 Wis. 602, 62 N. W. 516; Cold Storage Co. v. Dexter, 99 Wis. 214, 40 L. R. A. 837, 74 N. W. 976.

2 Alabama. Bradfield v. Land Co., 93 Ala. 527, 8 So. 383.

California. Lion v. McClory, 106 Call. 623, 40 Ac. 12.

Colorado. People v. Tynon, 2 Colo. App. 131, 29 Ac. 809; Mayo v. Wahl-green, 9 Colo. App. 506, 50 Ac. 40.

Delaware. Richardson v. Horn, 8 Houst. (Del.) 26, 31 Atl. 896.

Illinois. Banta v. Palmer, 47 111. 99; Tuck v. Downing, 76 111. 71; Brady v. Cole, 164 111. 116, 45 N. E. 438; Bear v. Fletcher, 252 111. 206, 90 N. E. 997; Krankowski v. Knapp, 268 111. 183, 108 N. E. 1006.

Iowa. Flynn v. Finch, 137 la. 378 114 N. W. 1058.

Kentucky. Seng v. Keller (Ky.), 37 S. W. 581.

Massachusetts. Rubber Co. v. Adams, 40 Mass. (23 Pick.) 256; Nash v. Trust Co., 159 Mass. 437, 34 N. E. 625. Compare same case 163 Mass. 574, 47 Am. St. Rep. 489, 28 L. R. A. 753, 40 N. E. 1039.

Michigan. Walker v. Casgrain, 101 Mich. 604, 60 N. W. 291; Hammer v. Martin, 171 N. W. 419.

Nebraska. Nostrum v. Halliday, 39 Neb. 828, 58 N. W. 429; McKibbin v. Day, 71 Neb. 280, 98 N. W. 845; Realty Investment Co. v. Shafer, 91 Neb. 798, 137 N. W. 873.

New Jersey. Hallinger v. Zimmerman, 58 N. J. Eq. 217, 42 Atl. 726 [affirming 59 N. J. Eq. 644, 44 Atl. 1100].

North Dakota. Heald v. Yumisko, 7 N. D. 422, 75 N. W. 806.

Oklahoma. Long v. Kendall, 17 Okla. 70, 87 Ac. 670; Wyrick v. Campbell, - Okla. - , 170 Ac. 267.

Oregon. Rumbaugh v. Settlemeier, 88 Or. 105, 171 Ac. 560.

Vermont. Shanks v. Whitney, 66 Vt. 405, 29 Atl. 367.

Virginia. Lake v. Tyree, 90 Va. 719, 19 S. E. 787.

Washington. Trust Co. v. Coal Co., 19 Wash. 493, 53 Ac. 951.

Wisconsin. O'Day v. Meyers, 117 Wis. 549, 133 N. W. 605.

3 Fisher v. Burks, 274 111. 363, 113 N. E. 711.

4 Fraser v. Walker, - Colo. - , 173 Ac. 1088.

5 Huber v. Guggenheim, 89 Fed. 598.

6 Bain v. Withey, 107 Ala. 223, 18 So. 217; Anderson, etc., Works v. Meyers, 15 Ind. App. 385, 44 N. E. 193; Cur-ran v Hauser, 6 Ohio N. P. 281.

7 Dillman v. Nadlehoffer, 119 111. 567, 7 N. E. 88; Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363, 36 Am. Rep. 198; Wade v. Ringo, 122 Mo. 322, 25 S. W. 901.

8 Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504, 2 L. R. A. 743, 20 N. E. 107 (that a bond was an "A No. 1 bond" and that the railroad on which was a mortgage securing the bond was "good security").

9 Van Vechten v. Smith, 59 la. 173, 13 N. W. 94; Columbia Electric Co. v. Dixon, 46 Minn. 463, 49 N. W. 244; able, or that an advertising card in a legal directory is valuable,10 are mere matters of opinion. A statement that a certain bid was as low as possible, and so low that there was no profit in the contract, is not a statement of fact.11 Connected with this principle is the rule that general and vague words of commendation uttered by a buyer to a seller with reference to the property offered for sale, can not constitute fraud.12