The personal knowledge of the person who makes a statement may be a material fact. Accordingly, a false, positive statement made as of the personal knowledge of the person making it is fraud, even where he is misled by statements of others into believing that the facts are as he states them, if he must know that he has not personal knowledge thereof.1 "A man is guilty of wilful falsehood when he asserts as of his own knowledge a matter of which he knows he is ignorant."2 It is at this point that fraud shades oil into innocent misrepresentation.

Machine Co. v. Feezer, 152 N. Car. 516, 67 S. E. 1004.

Ohio. Parmlee v. Adolph, 28 0. S. 10.

Vermont. Darling v. Stuart, 63 Vt. 570, 22 Atl. 634.

Wisconsin. Baradt v. Frederick, 78 Wis. 1, 11 L. R. A. 199, 47 N. W. 6; Montreal, etc., Co. v. Mihills, 80 Wis. 540, 50 N. W. 507.

4 Derry v. Peek, L. R. 14 App. 337 [reversing 37 Ch. D. 541]; White v. Sage, 19 Ont. App. 135; Sylvester v. Henrich, 93 la. 489, 61 N. W. 942; see Derry v. Peek in the House of Lords, by Frederick Pollock, 5 Law Quarterly Review 410; Derry v. Peek in the House of Lords, by Sir W. R. Anson, 6 Law Quarterly Review 72.

5 See cases cited in note 3, this section.

6 California. Wainscott v. Association, 98 Cal. 253, 33 Ac. 88.

Illinois. Borders v. Kattleman, 142 111. 96, 31 N. E. 19.

Iowa. Port Huron Machine Co. v. Davis, - la. - , 162 N. W. 228.

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

Minnesota. Riggs v. Thorpe, 67 Minn. 217, 69 N. W. 891.

Pennsylvania. Braunschweiger v. Waits, 179 Pa. St. 47, 36 Atl. 155.

Texas. Henderson v. R. R., 17 Tex. 560, 67 Am. Dec. 675.

Virginia. Wilson v. Carpenter, 91 Va. 183, 50 Am. St. Rep. 824, 21 S. E. 243; Grosh v. Land, etc., Co., 95 Va. 161, 27 S. E. 841.

Wisconsin. McKinnon v. Vollmar, 75 Wis. 82, 17 Am. St. Rep. 178, 6 L.R. A. 121, 43 N. W. 800.

7 Gordan v. Irvine, 105 Ga. 144, 31 S. E. 151.

8 Royal Neighbors of America v. Wallace, 73 Neb. 409, 102 N. W. 1020.

1 United States. Cooper v. Schlesin-ger, 111 U. S. 148, 28 L. ed. 382.

Alabama. Muroe v. Pritchett, 16 Ala. 785, 50 Am. Dec. 203; Greil Bros. Co. v. McLain, 197 Ala. 136, 72 So. 410.

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

Indiana. Furnas v. Friday, 102 Ind. 129, 1 N. E. 296; Ross v. Hobson, 131 Ind. 166, 26 N. E. 775; Mendenhall v. Stewart, 18 Ind. App. 262, 47 N. E. 943.

Iowa. Swayne v. Waldo, 73 la. 749, 5 Am. St. Rep. 712, 33 N. W. 78; Riley v. Bell, 120 la. 618, 95 N. W. 170; Port Huron Machine Co. v. Davis, - la. - , 162 N. W. 228; Dimond v. Peace River Land & Development Co., 165 N. W. 1032.

Kansas. Morrow v. Bonebrake, 84 Kan. 724, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1147, 115 Ac. 585.

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

Maine. Gould v. Ins. Co., 47 Me. 403, 74 Am. Dec. 494; Hotchkiss v. Bon Air Coal & Iron Co., 108 Me. 34, 78 Atl. 1108.

Massachusetts. Fisher v. Mellen, 103 Mass. 503; Litchfield v. Hutchinson, 117 Mass. 195; Cole v. Cassidy, 138 Mass. 437, 52 Am. Rep. 284; Chatham Furnace Co. v. Moffatt, 147 Mass. 403, 9 Am. St. Rep. 727, 18 N. E. 168; Lewis v. Jewell, 151 Mass. 345, 21 Am. St. Rep. 454, 24 N. E. 52; Bates v. Cashman, 230 Mass. 167, 119 N. E. 663.

Minnesota. Bullitt v. Farrar, 42 Minn. 8, 18 Am. St. Rep. 485, 6 L. R. A. 149, 43 N. W. 566; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491, 50 N. W. 533.

Missouri. Nauman v. Oberle, 90 Mo. 666, 3 S. W. 380; Ring v. Glass Co., 44 Mo. App. 111.

Nebraska. Olcott v. Bolton, 50 Neb. 779, 70 N. W. 366; Bauer v. Taylor (Neb.), 98 N. W. 29 [modifying on rehearing (Neb.), 96 N. W. 268].

New York. Kountze v. Kennedy, 147 N. T. 124, 49 Am. St. Rep. 651, 29 L.

R. A. 360, 41 N. E. 414; Haddock v. Osmer, 153 N. Y. 604, 47 N. E. 923.

Oklahoma. Leasure v. Hughes, 178 Ac. 696.

Oregon. Cawston v. Sturgis, 29 Or. 331, 43 Ac. 656.

Pennsylvania. Tyson v. Passmore, 2 Pa. St. 122, 44 Am. Dec. 181; Hex-ter v. Bast, 125 Pa. St. 52, 11 Am. St. Rep. 874, 17 Atl. 252.

Texas. Wright v. Mortgage Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 789.

Wisconsin. Wells v. McGeoch, 71 Wis. 196, 35 N. W. 769; Kathan v. Comstock, 140 Wis. 427, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 201, 122 N. W. 1044.

"When one falsefty states that to be true which he does not know to be true, for the purpose of inducing another to rely upon it and act upon it, he is just as guilty of actionable fraud in the event he is accepted at his word as if he knew at the time it was not true. One can. not falsely state a fact to be true as of his own knowledge, about which he has no knowledge, for the purpose of inducing another to act, and then, when action followB, escape liability on the mere showing that he did not know the fact to be untrue at the time he made the statement. When one asserts a fact to induce action on the part of another, it is rightly assumed that he has knowledge of the fact about which he makes the positive assertion, and, when acted upon, can not be heard to say that he did not know the fact was untrue at the time he asserted it, and escape liability." Dimond v. Peace River Land & Development Co. (la.), 165 N. W. 1032. So by statute in California: Mayer v. Salazar, 84 Cal. 646, 24 Ac. 597; Benson v. Bunting, 127 Cal. 532, 78 Am. St. Rep. 81, 59 Ac. 991.

2Gerner v. Yates, 61 Neb. 100, 107, 84 N. W. 596.

One who makes a positive statement concerning the title to realty is guilty of fraud if such statement is false, even though the party who makes such statement may not know the facts or the rules of law which are involved in such statement.3 A positive statement that the title to realty is perfect, which can be true only if the land was not occupied during a certain period, amounts to fraud, even if made by one who had no knowledge of such fact and who believes that his representation was true.4 One who makes a positive statement as to the location of a certain tract of land is guilty of fraud, even if he himself does not know the true location of such land.5 Where A stated to B that a certain specific lot of ore was within the boundaries of the mine to be sold, when A believed that he was telling the truth, but knew that the truth of the statement depended on the unwarranted assumption that a certain line assumed by the surveyor to run north did, in fact, run north, fraud was held to exist as such line did not run north and therefore such lot of ore was outside the tract conveyed.6 So the statement by a bank that the capital of an insurance company has been paid in,7 or a statement by a creditor that a certain debt has not been paid made to induce the guarantor to pay it,8 may each be fraudulent if made positively though believed when made to be true. That the party making the representations can show that he was himself deceived by another,9 or was misled by a forged letter from which he obtained his information,10 is no defense, as he has expressly or impliedly represented that he had personal knowledge of the fact stated. Either damages,11 or rescission,12 may be had.

"An unqualified statement that a fact exists, made for the purpose of inducing another to act upon it, implies that the person who makes it, knows it to exist and speaks from his own knowledge. If the fact does not exist and the defendant states of his own knowledge that it does, and induces another to act upon his statement the law will impute to him a fraudulent purpose." Hamlin v. Abell, 120 Mo. 188, 203, 25 S. W. 516.

3 Kathan v. Comstock, 140 Wis. 427, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 201, 122 N. W. 1044.

4 Kathan v. Comstock, 140 Wis. 427, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 201, 122 N. W. 1044.

5 Vincent v. Corbett, 94 Miss. 46, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 85, 47 So. 641.

6 Chatham Furnace Co. v. Moffatt, 14T Mass. 403, 0 Am. St. Rep. 727, 18 N. E. 168.

7 Hindman v. Bank, 112 Fed. 931, 57 L. R. A. 108, 50 C. C. A. 623.

8 Johnson v. Cate, 75 Vt. 100, 53 Atl. 329.

9 Browning v. Bank, 13 D. C. App. 1. 10 Mendenhair v. Stewart, 18 Ind. APP.

262, 47 N. E. 943.

11 Lahay v. Bank, 15 Colo. 339, 22 Am. St. Rep. 407, 25 Ac. 704; Prewitt v. Trimble, 92 Ky. 176, 36 Am. St. Rep. 586, 17 S. W. 356; Griswold v. Gebbie, 126 Pa. St. 353, 12 Am. St. Rep. 878, 17 Atl. 673.

12 Cooper v. Schlesinger, 111 U. S. 148, 28 L. ed. 382; Parmlee v. Adolph, 28 O. S. 10; Braunechweiger v. Waits. 179 Pa. St. 47, 36 Atl. 155.