The action of deceit lies against the person who makes the fraudulent representations.1 This action is entirely distinct from any rights connected with contract. It may be brought against one who is guilty of false representations, even if he is not a party to the contract;2 and even if he has derived no personal benefit from making such representations.3 If A introduces X to B as Y, the owner of certain realty, and B is thereby induced to lend money to X on security of such realty, and B is unable to recover such money from X, A is liable to B in tort, if A knew of such fraud.4 If A as B's agent makes a false representation to C, he is liable personally, though since he acts as agent, he is not liable on the contract.5 It lies even though the party defrauded has not fully performed the contract,6 as where he has not paid for the property in full.7 It may be brought though the property obtained by fraud has been transferred to a bona fide purchaser against whom no action can lie.8 In such action the law endeavors to give to the defrauded party the damages which result directly or naturally from such fraud.9 In sales made by fraud on the vendee, the damages are the difference between the property as represented and as it actually is;10 if by fraud on vendor, the dif-

26 Henry v. Herrington, 193 N.Y. 218, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 249, 86 N. E. 29.

1 United States. Stewart v. Ranche Co., 128 U. S. 383, 32 L. ed. 439; Grand Rapids, etc., Co. v. Lock Co., 45 Fed. 671; Wilson v. Higbee, 62 Fed. 723; Sigafus v. Porter, 84 Fed. 430, 28 C. C. A. 443.

Colorado. Vivian v. Allen, 9 Colo. App. 147, 47 Ac. 844; Oakes v. Miller, 11 Colo. App. 374, 55 Ac. 193.

Florida. West Florida Land Co. v. Studebaker, 37 Fla. 28, 19 So. 178.

Illinois. Antle v. Sexton, 137 111. 410, 27 N. E. 691 [affirming 32 111. App. 437]; Ogden v. Duffy, 59 111. App. 120.

Iowa. Stanhope v. Swaffod, 80 la. 45, 45 N. W. 403; Hanson v. Kline, 136 la. 101 fsub nomine, Hansen v. Kline, 113 N. W. 504] Skeels v. Porter, 165 la. 255, 145 N. W. 332.

Kansas. Davis v. Jenkins, 46 Kan. 19, 26 Ac. 459; Burnham v. Lutz, 8 Kan. App. 361, 55 Ac. 519.

Kentucky. Hughes v. Robertson, 17 Ky. (1 T. B. Mon.) 215, 15 Am. Dec. 104; Exchange Bank v. Gaitskill (Ky.), 37 S. W. 160.

Massachusetts. Sweet v. Kimball,

166 Mass. 332, 55 Am. St. Rep. 406, 44 N. E. 243.

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

Missouri. Cottrill v. Krum, 100 Mo. 397, 18 Am. St. Rep. 549, 13 S. W. 753; Hobbs v. Boatright, 195 Mo. 693, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 906, 93 S. W. 934.

New York. Schwenk v. Naylor, 102 N. Y. 683, 7 N. E. 788.

Pennsylvania. Hexter v. Bast, 125 Pa. St. 52, 11 Am. St. Rep. 874, 17 Atl. 252.

Texas. George v. Hesse, 100 Tex. 44, 123 Am. St. Rep. 772, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 804, 93 S. W. 107; Cabaness v. Holland, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 383, 47 S. W. 379.

Vermont. Shanks v .Whitney, 66 Vt. 405, 29 Atl. 367.

2 Lahay v. Bank, 15 Colo. 339, 22 Am. St. Rep. 407, 25 Ac. 704; Kuelling v. Roderick Lean Mfg. Co., 183 N. Y. 78, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 303, 75 N. E. 1098; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Sanger (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 525.

3 Hindraan v. Bank, 112 Fed. 931, 57 L. R. A. 308, 50 C. C. A. 623; Endsley v. Johns, 120 111. 469, 479, 60 Am. Rep. 572, 12 N. E. 247; Cox v. Armstrong (Ky.), 20 S. W. 290.

4 Raser v. Moomaw, 78 Wash. 653,

61 L. R. A. (N.S.) 707, 139 Ac. 622.

5 Hedin v. Minneapolis, etc., Institute,

62 Minn. 146, 54 Am. St. Rep. 628, 35 L. R. A. 417, 64 N. W. 158; Hamlin v. Abell, 120 Mo. 188, 25 S. W. 516.

6 Weaver v. Shriver, 79 Md. 530, 30 Atl. 189.

7 West Florida Land Co. v. Studc-baker, 37 Fla. 28, 19 So. 176.

8 Valentine v. Richardt, 126 N. Y. 272, 27 N. E. 255.

9 United States. Smith v. Bolles, 132 U. S. 125, 33 L. ed. 280.

California. Ahrens v. Adler, 33 Cal. 608; Edward Barron Estate Co. v. Woodruff Co., 163 Cal. 561, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 125, 126 Ac. 351.

Colorado. Lahay v. Bank, 15 Colo. 339, 22 Am. St. Rep. 407, 25 Ac. 704.

Iowa. Stevens v. Bradley, 89 la. 174, 56 N. W. 429.

Kentucky. Exchange Bank v. Gait-skill (Ky.), 37 S. W. 160.

Massachusetts. Allen v. Truesdell, 135 Mass. 75; Kerr v. Shurtleff, 218 Mass. 167, 105 N. E. 871; Brocklehurst & Potter Co. v. Marsch, 225 Mass. 3, 113 N. E. 646.

Oregon. Robertson v. Frey, 72 Or. 599, 144 Ac. 128.

Tennessee. Brown v. Woods, 43 Tenn. (3 Coldw.) 182.

Texas. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Sanger (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 525.

Wisconsin. Gunther v. Ullrich, 82 Wis. 222, 33 Am. St. Rep. 32, 52 N. W. 88; Nelson v. Goddard, 162 Wis. 66, 155 N. W. 943.

10 United States. Cooper v. Schlesin-ger, 111 U. S. 148, 28 L. ed. 382; Siga-fus v. Porter, 179 U. S. 116, 45 L. ed. 113.

Alabama. Stewart v. Riley, 189 Ala. 519, 66 So. 488.

Illinois. Antle v. Sexton, 137 111. 410, 27 N. E. 691 [affirming 32 111. App. 437].

Indiana. Nysewander v. Lowman, 124 Ind. 584, 24 N. E. 355.

Iowa. Ross v. Bolte, 165 la. 499, 146 N. W. 31.

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

Michigan. Totten v. Burhans, 91 Mich. 495, 51 N. W. 1119; Chapman v. Bible, 171 Mich. 663, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 373, 137 N. W. 533.

Minnesota. Stickney v. Jordan, 47 Minn. 262, 49 N. W. 980; International Realty & Securities Corp. v. Vander-poel, 127 Minn. 89, 148 N. W. 895.

New York. Haight v. Haight, 19 N. Y. 465; Hubbel v. Meigs", 50 N. Y. 480; Townsend v. Felthousen, 156 N. Y. 618, 51 N. E. 279.

ference between the real value and the price paid.11 The party defrauded is thus given the full benefit of his contract, and is placed as nearly as possible in the condition in which he would have been had the representations been true. Since this action is not necessarily connected with contract, it is merely referred to in this connection, to illustrate the different remedies available in case of fraud. If the party who is guilty of the fraud brings an action upon the contract and the party who has been defrauded does not wish to avoid the contract, the defrauded party may recoup or counterclaim damages caused by such fraud.12