Riddick, J., in Bugg v. Wertheimer-Schwartz Shoe Company (1897) 64 Arkansas, 12, 17, 18

Nor can we sustain the contention of appellant that to entitle the vendor to avoid a sale after delivery it must in all cases be shown that the vendee did not intend to pay for the goods. That is, as above stated, one ground on which the sale may be avoided, but not the only one. If the vendee knowingly makes false representations concerning material facts, and thus induces the seller to part with his goods, the seller may elect to avoid the sale, and this without regard to whether the buyer intended to pay for the goods or not. The fraud in such a case consists in inducing the vendor to part with his goods by false statements of the buyer, known to be false when made, or made by him when he has no reasonable ground to believe that they are true. If a vendor parts with his goods on the faith of such false statements made by the buyer, it would be strange if the law permitted the buyer to reap the fruits of such conduct, and retain the goods against the will of the vendor. To illustrate, let us suppose a case. A man with no property, but with great faith in his ability as a merchant, goes to a city and calls on a wholesale merchant for the purpose of buying a stock of goods. He believes that if he can obtain a stock of goods, his experience and ability will soon enable him to pay off the purchase price, but, fearing that the merchant may refuse to sell if he learns that he has no property, he thereupon, for the purpose of obtaining the goods, states to the merchant that he has money in the bank, and owns a large amount of both real and personal property. The merchant, ignorant of the facts, and relying on the truth of these statements, parts with his goods. He afterwards discovers the fraud, and brings an action to recover the goods. In such a case would it be a valid defence for the buyer to say that, although he had secured the goods by misrepresentation, yet he did honestly intend to pay for them? Clearly it would not. The courts would answer such a question substantially as it was answered by the Supreme Court of Connecticut when it said that the intent of the buyer to pay “may have lessened the moral turpitude of his act, but it will not suffice to antidote and neutralize an intentionally false statement which had accomplished its object of benefiting himself and of misleading the plaintiffs to their injury.” Judd v. Weber, 55 Conn. 267; Reid v. Cowduroy, 79 Iowa, 169; S. C. 18 Am. St. Rep. 359, and note; Strayhorn v. Giles, 22 Ark. 517.