If the person to whom the false statements are made could, by such further investigation for himself as a prudent man would make, discover their falsity, he is negligent to some extent if he omits to investigate. Whether the party making such false statements can avoid liability by showing that it was negligence to believe them, is a different question. The weight of modern authority is that this is no defense; indeed, the greater reliance, the clearer case of fraud, as long as the representations were not false on their face, or known to be false,1 especially if made by one who has a special and peculiar

5 The reason given is that the defrauded party "might have been entirely influenced by that part of the report for which there is no pretense that (the party making the false statements) was responsible." Poska v. Stearns, 56 Neb. 541, 71 Am. St. Rep. 688, 42 L. R. A. 427, 76 N. W. 1078.

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

7 Cohn v. Broadhead, 51 Neb. 834, 71 N. W. 747.

8 Wachsmuth v. Martini, 154 111. 515, 39 N. E. 129.

9 Belleville Pump, etc., Works v. Samuelaon, 16 Utah 234, 52 Ac. 282.

1 United States. Leicester Piano Co. v. Improvement Co., 55 Fed. 190; Merrill v. Improvement Co., 60 Fed. 17; Strand v. Griffith, 97 Fed. 854.

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

California. Norris v. Hay, 149 Cal. 695, 87 Ac. 380; Tracy v. Smith, 175 Cal. 161, 165 Ac. 535.

Colorado. Lahay v. Bank, 15 Colo. 339, 22 Am. St. Rep. 407, 25 Ac. 704; Zang v. Adams, 23 Colo. 408, 58 Am. St. Rep. 249, 48 Ac. 509; Benjamin v. Mattler, 3 Colo. App. 227, 32 Ac. 837. Connecticut. Gustafson v. Ruste-meyer, 70 Conn. 125, 66 Am. St. Rep. 92, 39 Atl. 104; Wilson v. Nichols, 72 Conn. 173, 43 Atl. 1052.

Illinois. Linington v. Strong, 107 111. 295; Mayberry v. Rogers, 81 111. App. 581.

Indiana. Dodge v. Pope, 93 Ind. 480; Ledbetter v. Davis, 121 Ind. 119, 22 N. E. 744; Ross v. Hobson, 131 Ind. 166, 26 N. E. 775; Kramer v. Williamson, 135 Ind. 655, 35 N. E. 388.

Iowa. Evans v. Palmer, 137 la. 426. 114 N. W. 912; Sutton v. Greiner, 177 knowledge of the facts concerning which he makes such statement;2 and even if proper inquiry would have disclosed the truth,3 or even if by the terms of the contract the defrauded party agrees to make la. 532, 159 N. W. 268; Gray v.Bricker, - la. - , 166 N. W. 284; Mulroney Mfg. Co. v. Weeks, 171 N. W. 36.

Kansas. Westerman v. Corder, 86 Kan. 239, 119 Ac. 868; International Harvester Co. v. Franklin County Hardware Co., 101 Kan. 488, 167 Ac. 1057.

Kentucky. Pryse v. McGuire, 81 Ky. 608; Trimble v. Ward, 97 Ky. 748, 31 S. W. 864.

Massachusetts. David v. Park, 103 Mass. 501; Brady v. Finn, 162 Mass. 260, 38 N. E. 506; M. & M. Co. v. Hood Rubber Co., 226 Mass. 181, 115 N. E. 234.

Michigan. Morman v. Harrington, 118 Mich. 623, 77 N. W. 242; Miller v. Du Vali, 191 Mich. 386, 158 N. W. 140.

Minnesota. Wilder v. De Cou, 18 Minn. 421; Redding v. Wright, 49 Minn. 322, 51 N. W. 1056; Erickson v. Fisher, 51 Minn., 300, 53 N. W. 038; Shrimp-ton v. Philbrick, 53 Minn. 366, 55 N. W\ 551; Bank v. Seymour, 75 Minn. 100, 77 N. W. 543; Van Metre v. Nunn, 116 Minn. 444, 133 N. W. 1012.

Mississippi. Evans v. Forstall, 58 Miss. 30.

Nebraska. Hoock v. Bowman, 42 Neb. 80, 47 Am. St. Rep. 691, 60 N. W. 389; Gerner v. Mosher, 58 Neb. 135, 46 L. R. A. 144, 78 N. W. 384; Perry v. Rogers, 62 Neb. 898, 87 N. W. 1063; Latta v. Button Land Co., 91 Neb. 689, 136 N. W. 1013; H. W. Abts Co. v. Cunningham, 95 Neb. 836, 146 N. W. 1036.

Nevada. Swinney v. Patterson, 25 Nev. 411, 62 Ac. 1.

New Jersey. Stoll v. Wellborn (N. J. Eq.), 56 Atl. 894.

New York. Mead v. Bunn, 32 N. Y. 275.

North Carolina. Blacknall v. Rowland, 116 N. Car. 389, 21 S. E. 296; same case, 108 N. Car. 554, 13 S. E. 191; White Sewing Machine Co. v, Bullock, 161 N. Car. 1, 76 S. E. 634.

North Dakota. Fargo, etc., Co. v. Fargo, etc., Co., 4 N. D. 219, 37 L. R. A. 593, 59 N. W. 1066.

Oklahoma. Mt. Hope Nurseries v. Jackson, 36 Okla. 273, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 243, 128 Ac. 250; Halsell v. First Nat. Bank, 48 Okla. 535, 150 Ac. 489; Chisum v. Huggins, 55 Okla. 423, 154 Ac. 1146.

Oregon. Davis v. Mitchell, 72 Or. 165, 142 Ac. 788.

South Dakota. Dakota National Bank v. Taylor, 5 S. D. 99, 58 N. W. 297; Davenport V. Buchanan, 6 S. D. 376, 61 N. W. 47; Rasmussen v. Reedy, 14 S. D. 15, 84 N. W. 205.

Texas. Labbe v. Corbett, 69 Tex. 503, 6 S. W. 808; Schram v. Strouse (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 262.

Vermont. Crompton v. Beedle, 83 Vt. 287, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 748, 75 Atl. 331.

Virginia. Grosh v. Land Co., 95 Va. 161, 27 S. E. 841.

Washington. Delta County Bank v. McGranahan, 37 Wash. 307, 79 Ac. 796; Stone v. Moody, 41 Wash. 680, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 799, 84 Ac. 617.

West Virginia. Martin v. South Bluefield Land Co., 81 W. Va. 62, 94 S. E. 493.

Wisconsin. Warder, etc., . Co. v. Whitish, 77 Wis. 430, 46 N. W. 540.

It is said to be an. extraordinary defense. Watson v. Atwood, 25 Conn. 313; Young v. Hopkins, 22 Ky. (6 T. B. Mon.) 19.

2 Hunt v. Davis, 98 Ark. 44, 135 S. W. 458.

3 Davis v. Forman, 229 Mo. 27, 129 S. W. 213.

an examination.4 If A makes certain representations to B, the fact that B's attorney advises him to investigate the truth of such representations does not prevent B from relying upon A's statements.5 Thus fraud may exist although the party deceived might by investigation have discovered the falsity of statements as to the quality,6 location,7 or area of land,8 even if he sees the boundaries,9 or as to the amount of rent,10 or of statements as to solvency, condition of business, and the like,11 even where he is given the right to examine the books,12 or though he relies on the report of vendee to a commercial agency and does not inquire of vendee in person.13 If the owner of land does not know the number of trees which are needed for a tract of that area, and the seller claims that he has measured the ground, and if the owner of the land is ill and unable to give the matter personal attention, the fact that such owner relies upon the statement of the seller as to the required number of trees, does not prevent the purchase of such number of trees from being set aside for fraudulent statements by the seller as to the number required.14 If the purchaser of property secures an option thereon by fraud, failure on the part of the vendor of the land to investigate the truth of such statements between the time that the option was given and the time that the deed was delivered, does not prevent the vendor from obtaining relief.15

4 J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. McKay, 161 N. Car. 584, 77 S. E. 848.

5 Van Horn v. Chambers, 89 Wash. 553, 154 Ac. 1084.

6 As that plaster rock is on the land. Morman v. Harrington, 118 Mich. 623, 77 N. W. 242.

7 Ballard v. Lyons, 114 Minn. 264, 38 L: R. A. (N.S.) 301, 131 N. W. 320.

As by examining a plat of record. Hoock v. Bowman, 42 Neb. 80, 47 Am. St. Rep. 691, 60 N. W. 389.

8 Lovejoy v. Tsbell, 73 Conn. 368, 47 Atl. 682; Boddy v. Henry, 113 Ia. 462, 53 L. R. A. 769, 85 N. W. 771; Mt. Hope Nurseries Co. v. Jackson. 36 Okla. 273, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 243, 128 Ac. 250.

9 Roberts v. French, 153 Mass. 60, 25 Am. St. Rep. 611, 26 N. E. 416.

Especially if the tract is irregular in shape and its area a matter of difficult calculation. Cawston v. Sturgis, 29 Or. 331, 43 Ac. 656; Best v. Offield, 59 Wash. 466, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 55, 110 Ac. 17.

10 Circle v. Potter, 83 Kan. 363, 111 Ac. 479.

11 United States. Leicester Piano Co. v. Improvement Co., 55 Fed. 190; Merrill v. Improvement Co., 60 Fed. 17.

Indiana. Ross v. Hobson, 131 Ind. 166, 26 N. E. 775.

Kentucky. Trimble v. Ward, 97 Ky. 748, 31 S. W. 864.

Minnesota. Redding v. Wright, 49 Minn. 322, 51 N. W. 1056.

North Carolina. Blacknall v. Rowland, 116 N. Car. 389, 21 S. E. 296; same case, 108 N. Car. 554, 13 S. E. 191.

North Dakota. Fargo, etc., Co. v. Fargo, etc., Co., 4 N. D. 219, 593, 37 L. R. A. 593, 59 N. W. 1066.

South Dakota. Dakota National Bank v. Taylor, 5 S. D. 99, 58 N. W. 297.

12 Zang v. Adams, 23 Colo. 408, 58 Am. St. Rep. 249, 48 Ac. 509; Gerner v. Mosher, 58 Neb. 135, 46 L. R. A. 244, 78 N. W. 384; Blacknall v. Rowland, 116 N. Car. 389, 21 S. E. 296; same case, 108 N. Car. 554. 13 S. E. 191.

13 Schram v. Strouse (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 262.

Even though the falsity of the facts stated appears on public records, open to inspection, such as records of conveyances,16 or incumbrances,17 or taxes,18 or tax titles,19 or though it appears on an abstract of title,20 or records of the patent office,21 fraud exists if such false statements were in fact relied on. Where A makes certain representations to B and refers him to other sources of information and advises him to consult them, it is a question of fact whether B should consult such sources.22 One who takes a check of another upon a bank in which the drawer has no funds may avoid the transaction for fraud, although if he had not been negligent, he could have discovered that the drawer was insolvent.23

14 Mt. Hope Nurseries v. Jackson, 36 Okla. 273, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 243, 128 Ac. 250.

15 Crompton v. Beedle, 83 Vt. 287, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 748, 75 Atl. 331.

16 United States. Wilson v. Higbee, 62 Fed. 723.

Alabama. Baker v. Maxwell, 99 Ala. 558, 14 So. 468.

Arkansas. Graham v. Thompson, 55 Ark. 296, 29 Am. St. Rep. 40, 18 S. W. 58.

Colorado. Benjamin v. Mattler, 3 Cold. App. 227, 32 Ac. 837.

Florida. Wheeler v. Baara, 33 Fla. 690, 15 So. 584.

Illinois. Kehl v. Abram, 210 111. 218, 102 Am. St. Rep. 158, 71 N. E. 347.

Indiana. Backer v. Pyne, 130 Ind. 288. 30 Am. St. Rep. 231, 30 N. E. 21.

Iowa. Faust v. Hosford, 119 la. 97, 93 N. W. 58; Riley v. Bell, 120 la. 618, 95 N. W. 170.

Kentucky. Campbell v. Whitting-ham, 28 Ky. (5 J. J. Mar.) 96, 20 Am. Dec. 241.

Minnesota. Carlton v. Hulett, 49 Minn. 308, 51 N. W. 1053.

New Mexico. Daly v. Bernstein, 6 N. M. 380, 28 Ac. 764.

Rhode Island. Hunt v. Barker, 22 R. I. 18, 46 Atl. 46.

Washington. Fischer v. Hillman, 68 Wash. 222, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1140, 122 Ac. 1016.

West Virginia. Martin v. South Blue-field Land Co., 81 W. Va. 62, 94 S. E. 493.

17 Carpenter v. Wright, 52 Kan. 221, 34 Ac. 798; Pitman v. Erskine, 49. Wash. 166, 94 Ac. 921.

18 Clark v. Thorpe Bros., 117 Minn. 202, 135 N. W. 387; Wright v. Mtge. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 789.

19 Matlack v. Shaffer, 51 Kan. 208, 37 Am. St. Rep. 270, 32 Ac. 890.

20 Cornell- v. Crane, 113 Mich. 460, 71 N. W. 878.

21 Swinney v. Patterson, 25 Nev. 411, 62 Ac. 1.

22 Whiting v. Price, 172 Mass. 240, 70 Am. St. Rep. 262, 51 N. E. 1084.

23 Mulroney Mfg. Co. v. Weeks 11a.), 171 N. W. 36.