In some jurisdictions a statement of the price paid for an article is held not to be such a statement of fact as can amount to actual fraud. Between persons in confidential relations a false statement as to the price paid is constructive fraud. Such a misstatement may constitute fraud as between principal and agent.1 A misstatement by an agent to his principal of the price for which he has bought property for the principal, overstating the price,2 or of the price for which he sells his principal's property, understating the price,3 constitutes constructive fraud. By such conduct the agent forfeits his right to his commissions, as where he charges the principal an excessive price for property which he buys as agent,4 or where he sells property for his principal at a price agreed upon by his principal, failing to disclose a better offer.5 So a false statement by a promoter to the other members of the association as to the price paid for property may constitute constructive fraud.6 Constructive fraud between co-owners merges into actual fraud where one co-owner buys for all, and misrepresents the price, thereby causing the remaining co-owners to pay more than their share of the purchase money while he pays less.7 Accordingly, if one of several co-owners, who acts for the rest, misstates to them the price at which the property in question has been bought or sold by him on behalf of such principal, or co-owner, thereby inducing them to pay more or to take less for their property, constructive or actual fraud exists.8 So if a husband, acting on an understanding with the grantee, misstates to his wife the price received for the homestead, whereby she is induced to release her interest therein,9 misstatement as to cost constitutes fraud.

Delaware. Kent, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 5 Houst. (Del.) 49.

Illinois. Borders v. Kattleman, 142 111. 96, 31 N. E. 19; Murray v. Tolman, 162 111. 417, 44 N. E. 748.

Indiana. Nichols v. Colgan, 130 Ind. 341, 30 N. E. 301.

Iowa. Lillibridge v. Allen, 100 la.

582, 69 N. W. 1031. Massachusetts. Andrews v. Jackson,

168 Mass. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 390, 37 L. R. A. 402, 47 N. E. 412.

Michigan. Collins v. Jackson, 54 Mich. 186, 19 N. W. 947.

Minnesota. Griffin v. Farrier, 32 Minn. 474, 21 N. W. 553.

Nebraska. McKnight v. Thompson, 39 Neb. 752, 58 N. W. 453.

South Carolina. Ruberg v. Brown, 50 S. Car. 397, 27 S. E. 873.

Texas. Newton v. Ganss, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 90, 26 S. W. 81.

Vermont. West v. Emery, 17 Vt.

583, 44 Am. Dec. 356.

Wisconsin. Parry v. Parry, 80 Wis. 122, 48 N. W. 654; Menz v. Beebe, 102

Wis. 342, 350, 77 N. W. 913, 78 N. W. 601. (As that horse is sound as far as he knows.) Whitworth v. Thomas, 83 Ala. 308, 3 Am. St. Rep. 725, 3 So. 781; Tyre v. Causey, 4 Harr. (Del.) 425; Timmis v. Wade, 5 Ind. App. 139, 31 N. E. 827.

15DeFrees v. Carr, 8 Utah 488, 33 Pac. 217; Menz v. Beebe, 102 Wis. 342, 350, 77 N. W. 913, 78 N. W. 601.

16 Mudsill Mining Co. v. Watrous, 61 Fed. 163.

17Baltimore Sugar Refining Co. v. Zell Co., 83 Md. 36, 34 Atl. 369.

18See Sec. 332.

1Rorebeck v. Van Eaton, 90 la. 82, 57 N. W. 694.

2Shaeffer v. Blair, 149 U. S. 248, 37 L. ed. 721; Salsbury v. Ware, 183 111. 505, 56 N. E. 149 [reversing 80 111. App. 485].

3Wadsworth v. Adams, 138 U. S. 380, 34 L. ed. 984; Bellinger v. Collins, 117 la. 173, 90 N. W. 609.

4Shaeffer v. Blair, 149 U. S. 248, 37 L. ed. 721.

5Wadsworth v. Adams, 138 U. S. 380, 34 L. ed. 084.

6Huiskamp v. West, 47 Fed. 236; McDowell v. Joice, 149 111. 124, 36 N. E. 1012 [affirming 46 111. App. 627]; Teachout v. Van Hoesen, 76 la. 113, 14 Am. St. Rep. 206, 1 L. R. A. 664, 40 N. W. 96.

Contra, it is not fraud for a promoter to insert in a prospectus of a corporation "cost of ground $40,000," the ground not costing the promoter that amount as it is a representation of the estimated value in the transfer to the corporation. Cold Storage Co. v. Dexter, 99 Wis. 214, 40 L. R. A. 837, 74 N. W. 976.

7Davis v. Hoffman, 167 Mo. 573, 67 S. W. 234.

8Alabama. King v. White, 119 Ala. 429, 24 So. 710.

Illinois. Bunn v. Schnellbacher, 163 111. 328, 45 N. E. 227 [affirming 59 111. App. 222].

Iowa. Iler v. Griswold, 83 la. 442, 49 N. W. 1023.

New Hampshire. Page v. Parker, 43 N. H. 363, 80 Am. Dec. 172.

Ohio. Yeoman v. Lasley, 40 O. S. 190.

Oklahoma. Noble v. Fox, 35 Okla. 70, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 933, 128 Pac. 102.

Pennsylvania. Katz v. Johnston, 178 Pa. St. 346, 35 Atl. 981; Bennett v. McMillin, 179 Pa. St. 146, 57 Am. St. Rep. 591, 36 Atl. 188 [sub nomine, Zahn v. McMillen in Pennsylvania Report].

Washington. Shoufo v. Griffiths, 4 Wash. 161, 31 Am. St. Rep. 910, 30 Pac. 93; Kennah v. Huston, 15 Wash. 275, 46 Pac. 236.

Wisconsin. Bergeron v. Miles, 88 Wis. 397, 43 Am. St. Rep. 911, 60 N. W. 783. The remedy given in such cases is sometimes an accounting. Dickson v. Patterson, 160 U. S. 584, 40 L. ed. 543; Katz v. Johnston, 178 Pa. St. 346, 35 Atl. 981; Kennah v. Huston, 15 Wash. 275, 46 Pac. 236; sometimes damages, King v. White, 119 Ala. 429, 24 So. 710; and sometimes a decree dividing the property in proportion to advances made. Shoufe v. Griffiths, 4 Wash. 161, 31 Am. St. Rep. 910, 30 Pac. 93. But it was held not fraud where A sold to B and C at a given price and without Co knowledge made a present to B to erable B to pay his share of the price. Snyder v. Hegan (Ky.), 40 S. W. 693.

9Stalling v. Hullum, 79 Tex. 421, 15 S. W. 677,