A statement made to the public, intended to influence the action of anyone who may be deceived thereby, may amount to fraud.1 Thus fraud may be committed by issuing a statement or prospectus of the affairs of a corporation, designed to influence the public generally, though such report may be required by law,2 and such liability exists by force of common-law principles independent of statute.3 Thus depositors,4 a purchaser of stock,5 or a surety on the bond of a cashier,6 can avail themselves of fraud in such cases. So a statement made in an advertisement of a sale7 may be fraud. Legislation may, however, abrogate the common-law liability and substitute a statutory liability therefor.8 The liability of directors of a national bank is meas-

8 City Nat. Rank v. Jordan, 139 la. 499, 117 N. W. 758.

9 Huston v. Ohio & Colorado Smelting & Refining Co., - Colo. - , 165 Ac. 251; Smith v. Rosebdom, 13 Ind. App. 284, 41 N. E. 552; Wells v. Cook, 16 0. S. 67, 88 Am. Dec. 436; Butter-field v. Barber, 20 R. I. 99, 37 Atl. 532.

10 Lieberman v. Bank, 2 Penne (Del.) 416, 48 L. R. A. 514, 45 Atl. 901; Hunne-well v. Duxbury, 154 Mass. 286, 13 L. R. A. 733, 28 N E. 267; Hoeft v. Kock, 119 Mich, 458, 78 N. W. 556 (a certificate of the amount of capital stock issued). But compare Silberraan v. Munroe, 104 Mich. 352, 62 N. W. 555, and the cases cited in the following section. Where the statute requires a report, the intention of the legislature in requiring such report determines whether fraud can be committed thereby.

11 Brown v. Brown, 62 Kan. 666, 64 Ac. 599.

1 Hindman v. Bank, 112 Fed. 931, 57 L. R. A. 108; Prewitt v. Trimble, 92

Ky. 176, 36 Am. St. Rep. 586, 17 S. W. 356; Silberman v. Munroe, 104 Mich. 352, 62 N. W. 555; Bartholomew v. Bentley, 15 Ohio 659, 45 Am. Dec 596.

2 England. Peek v. Gurney, L. R. 6 H. L. 377.

United States. Hindman v. Bank, 112 Fed. 931, 57 L. R. A. 108.

Kentucky. Graves v. Lebanon National Bank, 73 Ky. (10 Bush.) 23, 19 Am. Rep. 50; Prewitt v. Trimble, 92 Ky. 176, 36 Am. St. Rep. 586, 17 S. W. 356; Trimble v. Reid, 97 Ky. 713, 31 S. W. 861.

Michigan. Silberman v. Munroe, 104 Mich. 352, 62 N. W. 555.

Nebraska. Stuart v. Bank, 57 Neb. 569, 78 N. W. 298; Gerner v. Mosher, 58 Neb. 135, 46 L. R. A. 244, 78 N. W. 384; Gerner v. Yates, 61 Neb. 100, 84 N. W. 596; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Milliken, 62 Neb. 116, 86 N. W. 913.

New Jersey. Westervelt v. Demar-est, 46 N. J. L. 37, 50 Am. Rep. 400.

* ured exclusively by the national banking act and not by the rules of common law or equity,9 although such liability may be enforced in a state court if the petition or declaration of the plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to show such statutory liability.10

Whether a statement in a report which is made by a corporation to a public official in compliance with statute is a statement upon which the general public may rely, so that if such statement is material and false, contracts which are entered into with such corporation in reliance upon such statement may be avoided for such fraud, depends upon the purpose of the legislature in requiring such reports. If such report is required to be placed on file for the benefit of the public at large, a false statement thus made is made with intention to deceive the public; and accordingly such false statement may amount to fraud.11 If, on the other hand, such information is required solely for the state itself and not for the public at large, such false statement is not intended by the corporation as a means of inducing anyone to enter into contracts with it; and persons who learn of such statement have no right to rely thereon. Accordingly, such a statement can not amount to fraud.12

North Carolina. Tate v. Bates,. 118 N. Car. 287, 54 Am. St. Rep. 719, 24 S. E. 482

Texas. Seale v. Baker, 70 Tex. 283, 8 Am. St. Rep. 592, 7 S. W. 742.

3 Stuart v Bank, 57 Neb. 569, 78 N. W. 298.

4 Westervelt v. Demarest, 46 N. J. L. 37, 50 Am. Rep. 400; Tate v. Bates, 118 N. Car. 287, 54 Am. St. Rep. 719, 24 S. E. 482; Seale v. Baker, 70 Tex. 283, 8 Am. St, Rep. 592, 7 S. W. 742.

5 Warfield v. Clark, 118 la. 69, 91 N. W. 833; prewitt v. Trimbte, 92 Ky. 176, 36 Am. St. Rep. 586, 17 S. W. 356. One who issues a prospectus of a corporation which is intended to influence purchases in the market as well as subscriptions for shares is liable to one who is thereby induced to purchase shares. Andrews v. Mock-ford [1896], 1 Q. B. 372, 65 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 302.

6 Graves v. Bank, 73 Ky. (10 Bush) 23, 19 Am. Rep. 50.

7 Hadley v. Importing Co., 13 O. S. 502, 82 Am. Dec. 454.

8 Yates v. Jones National Bank, 206 U. S. 158, 51 L. ed. 1002 [reversing Yates v. Jones National Bank, 74 Neb. 734, 105 N. W. 287].

9 Yates v. Jones National Bank, 206 U. S. 158, 51 L. ed. 1002 [reversing Yates v. Jones National Bank, 74 Neb. 734, 105 N. W. 287].

10 Thomas v. Taylor, 224 U. S. 73, 56 L. ed. 673 [affirming, Taylor v. Thomas, 195 N. Y. 590, 89 N. E. 1113].

11 Warfleld v. Clark, 118 Ta. 69, 91 N. W. 833; Emerson v. Detroit Steel & Spring Co., 100 Mich. 127, 58 N. W. 659; Silberman v. Munroe, 104 Mich. 352, 62 N. W. 555; Dime Savings Bank v. Fletcher, 158 Mich. 162, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 858, 122 N. W. 540; Mason v. Moore, 73 O. S. 275, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 597, 76 N. E. 932.