If the person to whom the false statements are made does not rely on them, but investigates for himself and acts in reliance on his own knowledge, no fraud exists if the falsity of such representations was or could be discovered thereby and if no artifice was resorted to, to prevent him from discovering the truth.1 Thus where the party to whom false representations are made as to the value of land;2 as to the timber upon certain realty;3 as to the location of a" lot upon a street;4 the character of the soil;5 the quantity of land that was cleared;6 as to the condition of a mine,7 an hotel,8 a restaurant,9

Nebraska. Stochl v. Carey, 48 Neb. 786, 67 N. W. 783.

North Carolina. Hill v. Brower, 76 N. Car. 124.

16 Hoist v. Stewart, 161 Mass. 516, 42 Am. St. Rep. 442, 37 N. E. 755 (reading a schedule of trains from a time-table to show the accessibility of suburban property).

17 Evans v. Palmer, 137 la. 425, 114 N. W. 912.

18 Nysewander v. Lowman, 124 Ind. 684, 24 N. E. 355; Andrews v. Jackson, 168 Mass. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 390, 47 N. E. 412; Cottrill v. Krum, 100 Mo. 397, 18 Am. St. Rep. 549, 13 S. W. 753.

19 Bloomer v. Gray, 10 Ind. App. 326, 37 N. E. 819; Cottrill v. Krum, 100 Mo. 397, 18 Am. St. Rep. 549, 13 S. W. 753.

20 Whitworth v. Thomas, 83 Ala. 308, 3 Am. St. Rep. 725, 3 So. 781.

1 Farwell v. Telegraph Co., 161 Hi. 522, 44 N. E. 891; Teachout v. Van Hoesen, 76 la. 113, 14 Am. St. Rep. 206, 1 L. R. A. 664, 140 N. W. 96; Cheney v. Gleason, 125 Mass. 166; Wells v. McGeoch, 71 Wis. 196, 35 N. W. 769.

2 Endsley v. Johns, 120 III. 469, 60 Am. Rep. 572, 12 N. E. 247; Elerick v. Reid, 54 Kan. 579, 38 Ac. 814.

3 Goodrich v. Smith, 87 Mich. 1, 49 N. W. 469; Garrow v. Brown, Winst. Eq. (N. Car.) 46, 86 Am. Dec. 450; De Frees v. Carr, 8 Utah 488, 33 Ac. 217.

4 Hoist v. Stewart, 161 Mass. 516, 42 Am. St. Rep. 442, 37 N. E. 755.

5 See ch. XVI.

1 United States. Southern Development Co. v. Silva, 125 U. S. 247, 31 L. ed. 678; Farrar v. Churchill 135 U. S. 609, 34 L. ed. 246; Famsworth v. Duffner, 142 U. S. 43, 35 L. ed. 931; In re Epstein, 109 Fed. 874; Stratton's Independence v. Dines, 126 Fed. 968; Smith v. Curran, 138 Fed. 150; Mather v. Barnes, 146 Fed. 1000; Curran v. Smith, 149 Fed. 945.

Alabama. Brewer v. Arantz, 124 Ala. 127, 26 So. 922.

Arizona. Dooley v. Burlington Gold Mining Co., 12 Ariz. 332, 100 Ac. 797.

California. Colton v. Stanford, 82 Cal. 351, 16 Am. St. Rep. 137, 23 Ac. 16; Lee v. McClelland, 120 Cal. 147, 52 Ac. 300.

District of Columbia. Security Investment Co. v. Garrett, 3 D. C. App. 69.

Florida. Hirschman v. Hodges, O'Hara & Russell Co., 59 Fla. 517, 51 So. 550.

Georgia. Lewis v. Mtge. Co., 94 Ga. 572, 21 S. E. 224.

Illinois. Crocker v. Manley, 164 111. 282, 56 Am. St. Rep. 196, 45 N. E. 577; Day v. Miiligan, 72 111. App. 324.

Indiana. Craig v. Hamilton, 118 Ind. 565, 21 N. E. 315; Denny v. Woods, 2 Ind. App. 301, 28 N. E. 443.

Iowa. Lucas v. Crippen, 76 la. 507, 41 N. W. 205; Armstrong v. Breen, 101 la. 9, 69 N. W. 1125; Hill v. Vic-tora (la.), 161 N. W. 72.

Kentucky. Newton v. Terry (Ky.), 22 S. W. 159.

Michigan. Fifth National Bank v. Pierce, 117 Mich. 376, 75 N. W. 1058; Buxton v. Jones, 120 Mich. 522, 79 N. W. 980.

Mississippi. Hiller v. Ellis, 72 Miss. 701, 41 L. R. A. 707, 18 So. 95.

Missouri. Warren v. Ritchie, 128 Mo.

311, 30 S. W. 1023; Younger v. Hoge, 211 Mo. 444, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 94, 111 S. W. 20; Brockhaus v Schilling, 52 Mo. App. 73.

New York. Arnold v. Hosiery Co., 148 N. Y. 392, 42 N. E. 980.

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

Oregon. Whalen v. Tipton, 31 Or. 566, 50 Ac. 1016.

Tennessee. Driver v. White (Tenn. Ch. App.), 51 S. W. 994.

Texas. Calhoun v. Quinn (Tex. Civ. App.), 21 S. W. 705; Security, etc., Co. v. Haney (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 215.

Washington. Stewart v. Larkin, 74 Wash. 681, 134 Ac. 186; Forrester v. Jastad, 97 Wash. 633, 167 Ac. 55.

Wisconsin. Farr v. Peterson, 91 Wis. 182, 64 N. W. 863.

2 Georgia. Lewis v. Mtge. Co., 94 Ga. 572, 21 S. E. 224.

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

Texas. Security, etc., Co. v. Haney (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 215.

Washington. Forrester v. Jastad, 97 Wash. 633, 167 Ac. 55.

Wisconsin. Farr v. Peterson, 91 Wis. 182, 64 N. W. 863.

3 Wright v. Boltz, 87 Ark. 567, 113 S. W. 201.

4 Kline v. Kennedy, 150 Ky. 729, 150 S. W. 998.

5 Forrester v. Jastad, 97 Wash. 633, 167 Ac. 55.

6 Forrester v. Jastad, 97 Wash. 633, 167 Ac. 55.

7 Crocker v. Manley, 164 111. 282, 56 Am. St. Rep. 196, 45 N. E. 577.

8 Day v. Miiligan, 72 111. App. 324.

9 Delolme v. State Savings Bank, 113 Ark. 599, 169 S. W. 229.

a mill;10 the stock of goods in a saloon;11 the quality of personal property;12 as where property is sold on inspection;13 the solvency of a person;14 or the physical condition of an applicant for insurance,15 relies, not on such statement, but on the result of his independent inquiries, no fraud can be said to exist. If A made false representations to B as to the amount of water which a steamboat would draw, B can not avoid a contract for the sale of such steamboat because of such fraud if B subsequently examined such steamboat and learned how much water it drew before he entered into such contract.16 Independent investigation is sometimes held to prevent a fraudulent statement from amounting to fraud, even if the investigation does not result in a discovery of the truth and if the party to whom such fraudulent statements were made continues to rely on them.17 Experienced engineers who enter into a contract to construct a pipe line and a reservoir, after making a complete investigation and preliminary surveys, can not avoid such contract because of fraudulent representations made to them by the adversary party.18 A contract for the sale of stock in a corporation can not be avoided for a false statement as to the amount of stock which was paid in if the purchaser and his agent examined the books of the corporation, and if the books showed the real facts.19 One who has bought standing timber in reliance upon the vendor's statement as to its quality, and who has made an examination of the timber, can not avoid such contract by reason of fraud as to such statement concerning the quality thereof.20 A statement that there were one hundred bushels of corn on the land, when in fact there were only twelve, does not amount to fraud if the purchaser actually saw the amount of corn on such land.21

10 Newton v. Terry (Ky.), 22 S. W. 159; Newton v. Levy (Ky.), 82 S. W. 259.

11 Brockhaus v. Schilling, 52 Mo. App. 73 (vendor stated how long the stock would last; and vendee had an experienced saloonkeeper inspect the stock for him).

12 Brewer v. Arantz, 124 Ala. 127, 26 So. 922; Hayslip v. Fields, 142 Ga. 49, 82 S. E. 441.

13 Redfield v. Engel, 171 Mich. 207, 137 N. W. 60.

14 Fifth National Bank v. Pierce, 117 Mich. 376, 75 N. W. 1058; Hiller v. Ellis, 72 Miss. 701, 41 L. R. A. 707, 18 So. 95.

15 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Moats, 207 Fed. 481, 125 C. C. A. 143.

16 Slaughter's Administrator v. Ger-son, 80 U. S. (13 Wall) 379, 20 L. ed. 627.

17 Sohan v. Gibson, 118 Ky. 403, 80 S. W. 1173; Hulet v. Achey, 39 Wash. 91, 80 Ac. 1105.

18 Smith v. Curran, 138 Fed. 150 [affirmed, Curran v. Smith, 149 Fed. 945, 81 C. C. A. 537].

19 Younger v. Hoge, 211 Mo. 444, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 94, 111 S. W. 20.

20 Hulet v. Achey, 39 Wash. 91, 80 Ac. 1105.

21 Sohan v. Gibson, 118 Ky. 403, 80 S. W. 1173.