It is an essential element of fraud as distinguished from misrepresentation,1 that the party making such statement must do so knowing that it is false;2 or that he must make a positive statement as of an existing fact without any reasonable ground for believing it to be true, in reckless ignorance

19 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 231 U. S. 543, 58 L. ed. 356.

20 In re Gany, 103 Fed. 930; Stack-pole v. Hancock, 40 Fla. 362, 45 L. R. A. 814, 24 So. 914; Cleveland, etc., Co. v. Plow Co., 13 Ind. App. 225, 41 N. E. 480.

21 Currier v. Poor, 155 N. Y. 344, 49 N. E. 937 [reversing 84 Hun. 45].

22 Atlas Shoe Co. v. Bechard, 102 Me. 197, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 245, 66 Atl. 390; Piche v. Robbins, 24 R. I. 325, 53 Atl. 92.

23 Piche v. Robbins, 24 R. I. 325, 53 Atl. 92. 24 Atlas Shoe Co. v. Bechard, 102 Me.

197, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 245, 66 Atl. 390.

1 See Sec. 217, 218.

2 United States. Dushane v. Benedict, 120 U. S. 630, 30 L. ed. 810; Union Ac. Ry. Co. v. Barnes, 64 Fed. 80.

Arkansas. Hutchinson v. Gorman, 71 Ark. 305, 73 S. W. 793.

California. Daley v. Quick, 99 Cal. 179, 33 Ac. 859.

Colorado. Cole v. Smith, 26 Colo. 506, 58 Ac. 1086.

Delaware. Journal Printing Co. v. Maxwell, 1 Penn. (Del.) 611, 43 Atl. 615.

Illinois. Hutchinson, etc., Co. v. Lyof its truth or falsity.3 Some courts in treating of fraud as an actionable wrong - a tort - for which damages are claimed, hold that a statement in ignorance of its truth or falsity can not be ford, 123 111. 300, 13 N. E. 844; Crocker v. Manley, 164 111. 282, 56 Am. St. Rep. 196, 45 N. E. 577; Gillespie v. Fulton Oil & Gas Co., 236 I1L 188, 86 N. E. 219.

Iowa. Scroggin v. Wood, 87 la. 497, 54 N. W. 437; Boddy v. Henry, 113 la. 462, 53 L. R. A. 769, 85 N. W. 771; Metzer v. Sargeant, 115 la. 527, 88 N. W. 1068.

Kansas. Farmers', etc., Association v. Scott, 53 Kan. 534, 36 Ac. 978; Kansas Refrigerator Co. v. Pert, 3 Kan. App. 364, 42 Ac. 943.

Kentucky. Campbell v. Hillman, 54 Ky. (15 B. Mon.) 508, 61 Am. Dec. 195.

Massachusetts. Bowker v. Belong, 141 Mass. 315, 4 N. E. 834; Nash v. Trust Co., 163 Mass. 574, 47 Am. St. Rep. 489, 28 L. R. A. 753, 40 N. E. 1039; same case, 159 Mass. 437, 34 N. E. 625.

Minnesota. Haven v. Neal, 43 Minn. 315, 45 N. W. 612.

Missouri. Dun v. White, 63 Mo. 181; Walsh v. Morse, 80 Mo. 568.

New Jersey. Crowell v. Jackson, 53 N. J. L. 656, 23 Atl. 426; Hope v. The Maccabees, 1 A. L. R. 455, 102 Atl. 689.

New York. Kountze v. Kennedy, 147 N. Y. 124, 49 Am. St. Rep. 651, 29 L. R. A. 360, 41 N. E. 414.

Ohio. McCracken v. West, 17 Ohio 16; Taylor v. Leith, 26 O. S. 428.

Pennsylvania. Lamberton v. Dunham, 165 Pa. St. 129, 30 Atl. 716.

Tennessee. Wynne v. Allen, 66 Tenn. (7 Baxt.) 312, 32 Am. Rep. 562.

Virginia. Scott v. Boyd, 101 Va. 28, 42 S. E. 918.

3 United States. Cooper v. Schlesin-ger, 111 U. S. 148, 28 L. ed. 382; Nevada Bank v. Bank, 59 Fed. 338; Hindman v. Bank, 112 Fed. 931, 57 L. R. A. 108,

50 C. C. A. 623; King v. Lamborn, 186 Fed. 21, 108 C. C. A. 123.

Alabama. Jones v. Ross, 98 Ala. 448, 13 So. 319; Prestwood v. Carlton, 162 Ala. 327, 50 So. 254..

California. Alvarez v. Brannan, 7 Cal. 503, 68 Am. Dec. 274; Mayer v. Salazar, 84 Cal. 646, 24 Ac. 597.

Connecticut. Schofield, etc., Co. v. Schofield, 71 Conn. 1, 40 Atl. 1046.

District of Columbia. Browning v. Bank, 13 D. C. App. 1.

Illinois. Miller v. John, 208 111. 173, 70 N. E. 27.

Indiana. Furnas v. Friday, 102 Ind. 129, 1 N. E. 296.

Kentucky. Prewitt v. Trimble, 92 Ky. 176, 36 Am. St. Rep. 586, 17 S. W. 356.

Maine. Linscott v. Ins. Co., 88 Me. 497, 51 Am. St. Rep. 435, 34 Atl. 405; Hotchkiss v. Bon Air Coal & Iron Co., 108 Me. 34, 78 Atl. 1108.

Massachusetts. Milliken v. Thorn-dike, 103 Mass. 382; Chatham Furnace Co. v. Moffatt, 147 Mass. 403, 9 Am. St. Rep. 727, 18 N. E. 168.

Michigan. Beebe v. Knapp, 28 Mich. 53.

Minnesota. Bullitt v. Farrar, 42 Minn. 8, 18 Am. St. Rep. 485, 6 L. R. A. 149, 43 N. W. 566; Hedin v. Minneapolis, etc., Institute, 62 Minn. 146, 54 Am. St. Rep. 628, 35 L. R. A. 417, 64 N. W. 158.

Missouri. Hamlin v. Abell, 120 Mo. 188, 25 S. W. 516; Florida v. Morrison, 44 Mo. App. 529; Paretti v. Rebenack, 81 Mo. App. 494.

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

New York. Kountze v. Kennedy, 147 N. Y. 124, 49 Am. St. Rep. 651, 29 L. R. A. 360, 41 N. E. 414.

North Carolina. J. L Case Threshing fraud,4 though this is contrary to the weight of authority;5 but where the statement is made by the adversary party to the contract, and possesses the other elements of fraud, rescission is always granted, either informally at law or formally in equity.6 If the party making such representations knows that they are false, it makes no difference how he obtained* his knowledge. Thus knowledge obtained by one as creditor and administrator is chargeable against him as vendor of a note.7 One who knows facts which would cause him to believe that he is suffering from a certain disease, is guilty of fraud if in applying for insurance he represents that he is free from such disease.8