Illinois. Potter v. Potter, 65 111. App. . 74.

Indiana. Miller v. Buchanan, 10 Ind. App. 474, 38 N. E. 56 [affirming on rehearing 10 Ind. App. 474, 37 N. E. 187].

Iowa. Teachout v. Van Hoesen, 76 la. 113, 1 L. R. A. 664, 40 N. W. 96; Dorr v. Cory, 108 la. 725, 78 N. W. 682; Stotts v. Fairfield, 163 la. 726, 145 N. W. 61; Gray v. La Plant, - la. - , 167 N. W. 648.

Kentucky. Morehead v. Eades, 69 Ky. (3 Bush) 121.

Maine. Coolidge v. Goddard, 77 Me. 578, 1 Atl. 831; Hoxie v. Small, 86 Me. 23, 29 Atl. 920; Caswell v. Hunton, 87 Me. 277, 32 Atl. 899.

Massachusetts. Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 44 N. E. 108; Boles v. Merrill, 173 Mass. 491, 73 Am. St. Rep. 308, 53 N. E. 894.

Michigan. French v. Ryan, 104 Mich. 625, 62 N. W. 1016; Moon v. McKinstry, 107 Mich, 668, 65 N. W. 546; Woolen Co. v. Smalley, 111 Mich. 321, 69 N. W. 722.

Minnesota. -Vath v. Wiechmann, 138 Minn. 87, 163 N. W. 1028.

New Jersey. Conlan v. Roemer, 52 N. J. L. 53, 18 Atl. 858.

New York. Smith v. Countryman, 30 N. Y. 655; Fairchild v. McMahon, 139 N. Y. 290, 36 Am. St. Rep. 701, 34 N. E. 779; Townsend v. Felthousen, 156 N. Y. 618, 51 N. E. 279.

North Carolina. Stewart v. Salisbury Realty & Insurance Co., 159 X. Car. 230, 74 S. E. 736.

Ohio. Smith v. Patterson, 30 O. S. 70.

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

Texas. Stallings v. Hullum, 79 Tex. 421, 15 S. W. 677.

Washington. Kohl v. Taylor, 62 Wash. 678, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 174, 114 Ac. 874. (Statements of a valuation placed on property by appraisers and bids made for shares are fraud where the valuation and bids were made in fraud: Bartol v. Walton, etc., Co., 92 Fed. 13.)

2 Miller v. Buchanan, 10 Ind. App. 474, 38 N. E. 56 [affirming on rehearing 10 Ind. App. 474, 37 N. E. 187]; Warren v. Miller (la.) 99 N. W. 127; Elerick v. Reid, 54 Kan. 579, 38 Ac. 814.

3 Elliott Supply Co. v. Green, 35 N. D. 641, 160 N. W. 1002.

4 Stoney Creek Woolen Co. v. Smalley, 111 Mich. 321, 69 N. W. 722; Yeoman v. Lasley, 40 O. S. 190.

5 Moline Plow Co. v. Carson, 72 Fed. 387, 18 C. C. A. 606; Boles v. Merrill, 173 Mass. 491, 73 Am. St. Rep. 308, 53 N. E. 894. As a statement of the amount offered for a patent right: Strickland v. Graybill, 97 Va. 602, 34 S. E. 475 [citing Hull v. Fields 76 Va. 594, 606].

Where a purchaser represents that his offer is the best available, concealing a better offer from parties to whom or as to the price at which such property has been offered,6 or as to the price at which similar property has been offered,7 or as to the income therefrom,8 such as the rental of realty,9 or profits from realty,10 or profits made by the sale of the article in question,11 or a statement of the cost of manufacturing a patented article,12 or a false statement of the cost of an article, to obtain insurance thereon,l3 may be fraud. Thus a false statement by vendor to vendee as to the amount of commissions to be paid out of the purchase price, has been held a ground for abatement of the price.14 A statement that a given brand of whiskey has a regular sale in open market at a specified price, is a statement of fact.15 A false statement as to the actual cost of operating a mine may be fraudulent.16 If A, who owns stock in a corporation, makes a false statement to B as to the cost thereof, such statement is fraud for which a contract for the sale thereof will be set aside.17 A false statement by A to the effect that he could secure certain stock for B at he resells at once: Bennett v. McMil-lin, 179 Pa. St. 146, 57 Am. St. Rep. 591 [cited at top of page in 179 Pa. St. 146, and in 36 Atl. 18S as Zahn v. McMillin].

6 Vath v. Wiechmann, 138 Minn. 87, 163 N. W. 1028.

7 Smith, Kline & French Co. v. Smith, 166 Pa. St. 563, 31 Atl. 343.

8 United States. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Light, etc., Co., 89 Fed. 794.

California. Cruess v. Fessler, 39 Gal. 336; Evans v. Duke (Cal.), 69 Ac. 688 [reversed in banc on the ground of laches, 140 Cal. 22, 73 Ac. 732].

Colorado. Beard v. Bliley, 3 Colo. App. 479, 34 Ac. 271.

Illinois. Allen v. Hart, 72 111. 104; O'Donnell, etc., Brewing Co. v. Farrar, 163 111. 471, 45 N. E. 283.

Massachusetts. Cheney v. Gleason, 125 Mass. 166; Lee v. Tarplin, 183 Mass. 52, 66 N. E. 431.

Michigan. Kost v. Bender, 25 Mich. 515; Miller v. Voorheis, 115 Mich. 356, 73 N. W. 383; Graves v. Kennedy, 119 Mich. 621, 78 N. W. 667.

Oklahoma. National Bank v. Oldham, 26 Okla. 139, 109 Ac. 75.

Rhode Island. Handy v. Waldron, 18 R. I. 567, 49 Am. St. Rep. 794, 29 Atl. 143.

Washington. Tacoma v. Water Co., 17 Wash. 458, 50 Ac. 55 [reversing on rehearing 16 Wash. 288, 47 Ac. 738].

9 Briggs v. Dunne, 168 111. 226, 48 N. E. 48; Circle v. Potter, 83 Kan. 363, 111 Ac. 479; Lee v. Tarplin, 183 Mass. 52, 66 N. E. 431; Hecht v. Metzler, 14 Utah 408, 60 Am. St. Rep. 906, 48 Ac. 37.

10 Evans v. Duke (Cal.), 69 Ac. 688 [reversed in banc on the ground of laches, 140 Cal. 22, 73 Ac. 732].

11 Crooker v. White, 162 Ala. 476, 50 So. 227.

12 Braley v. Powers, 92 Me. 203, 42 Atl. 362.

13 Miller v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 69 Wash. 529, 125 Ac. 782.

14 Henry v. Mayer, 6 Ariz. 103, 53 Ac. 590.

15 Stoll v. Welburn (N. J. Eq.), 56 Atl. 894.

16 Hotchkiss v. Bon Air Coal & Iron Co., 108 Me. 34, 78 Atl. 1108.

17Kohl v. Taylor, 62 Wash. 678, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 174, 114 Ac. 874.

• two dollars and fifty cents a share, when in fact such stock was selling at from sixty to seventy-five cents a share, is fraud for which the purchaser may avoid such contract.18 If the owner of a moving picture theater distributes free tickets while he is negotiating with a purchaser, and thus causes a large fictitious attendance at his theater as a means of deceiving the purchaser as to the amount of business done, such false representations amount to fraud.19 If one of several joint purchasers misrepresents to the others the price at which the vendor sells the article so that such purchaser keeps the difference between the actual price and the price which he thus represents, such false statement amounts to fraud.20 If one party conspires with the agent of the adversary party, by which the adversary party is induced to pay an excessive price, which excess is divided between such agent and such first party, such conduct amounts to fraud.21

In many cases, however, a statement by vendor of the price paid by him for the article offered for sale is held not fraud where it is understood by both parties to be the customary praise of one's own property,22 and a like view is taken of statements as to the price offered for the article in question by a third person.23 Thus a false statement by an agent as to the price demanded by his principal for certain territory for a patent right and that he can get a better price from such principal than anyone else, whereby he gets a greater price than the principal required;24 or a false statement that the price at which the goods were offered was as low as could be obtained elsewhere,25 do not amount to fraud.

18 Sams v. Barnes, 74 W. Va. 420, 82 S. E. 124.

19 Noyes v. Meharry, 213 Mass. 598, 100 N. E. 1090.

20 Cox v. Cline, 147 la. 353, 126 N. W. 330; Noble v. Fox, 35 Okla. 70, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 933, 128 Ac. 102; Elgin City Banking Co. v. Hall, 119 Tenn. 548, 108 S. W. 1068.

21 Standard Lumber Co. v. Butler Ice Co., 146 Fed. 359, 7 L. R. A. (N.S.) 467, 76 C. C. A. 639.

22 United States. Mackenzie v. See-berger, 76 Fed. 108, 22 C. C. A. 83.

Illinois. Tuck v. Downing, 76 111. 71; Hawk v. Brownell, 120 111. 161, 11 N. E. 416; Alexander v. Emmett, 169 111. 523, 48 N. E. 427 [affirming 68 111. App. 261].

Kansas. Graffenstein v. Epstein, 23 Kan. 443, 33 Am. Rep. 171; Burns v. Mahannah, 39 Kan. 87, 17 Ac. 319; Sowers v. Parker, 59 Kan. 12, 51 Ac. 888.

Maine. Holbrook v. Connor, 60 Me. 578, 11 Am. Rep. 212; Bishop v. Small, 63 Me. 12; Bourn v. Davis, 76 Me. 223.

Massachusetts. Hemmer v. Cooper, 90 Mass. (8 All.) 334; Cooper v. Lover-ing, 106 Mass. 77; Mooney v. Miller, 112 Mass. 217; Parker v. Moulton, 114 Mass. 99, 19 Am. Rep. 315; Poland v. Brownell, 131 Mass. 138, 41 Am. Rep. 215; Gassett v. Glazier, 165 Mass. 473, 43 N. E. 193. (An analysis of these cases discloses that in many of them this proposition is not necessary to the decision, as the parties either knew of the facts before closing the sale or ratified it afterwards. Other cases, however, it must be admitted, lay down and apply this rule in such a way as to give exactly the opposite result from that reached in the cases cited in the first note of this section.)

23 Cole v. Smith, 26 Colo. 506, 58 Ac. 1086; Mayo v. Latham, 159 Mich. 136, 123 N. W. 561.