Eastern Trust & Banking Company v. Cunningham Supreme Court, Maine, February 20, 1908. Reported in 103 Maine Reports, 455

Savage, J. But the defendant contends further, that, if the plaintiff did not know, it ought to have known, and would have known but for its own negligence. We think this defence cannot avail. There are cases which hold that where one carelessly relies upon a pretence of inherent absurdity and incredibility upon mere idle talk, or upon a device so shadowy as not to be capable of imposing upon any one, he must bear his misfortune, if injured. He must not shut his eyes to what is palpably before him. But that doctrine, if sound, is not applicable here. We think the well-settled rule to be applied here is that if one intentionally misrepresents to another facts particularly within his own knowledge, with an intent that the other shall act upon them, and he does so act, he cannot afterwards excuse himself by saying, “You were foolish to believe me.” It does not lie in his mouth to say that the one trusting him was negligent. In this case the fact whether or not there were funds in the Gardiner bank to meet the checks was peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. The rule is stated in Pollock on Torts, § 252, as follows: “It is now settled law that one who chooses to make positive assertions without warrant shall not excuse himself by saying that the other party need not have relied upon them. He must show that his representation was not in fact relied upon. In short, nothing will excuse a culpable misrepresentation short of proof that it was not relied upon, either because the other party knew the truth, or because he relied wholly on his own investigations, or because the alleged fact did not influence his action at all.” In Linington v. Strong, 107 Ill. 295, we find this language: “The doctrine is well settled that as a rule a party guilty of fraudulent conduct shall not be allowed to cry ‘negligence’ as against his own deliberate fraud.... While the law does require of all parties the exercise of reasonable prudence in the business of life, and does not permit one to rest indifferent in reliance upon the interested representations of an adverse party, still, as before suggested, there is a certain limitation to this rule; and, as between the original parties to the transaction we consider that, when it appears that one party has been guilty of an intentional and deliberate fraud by which to his knowledge the other party has been misled or influenced in his action, he cannot escape the legal consequences of his fraudulent conduct by saying that the fraud might have been discovered had the party whom he deceived exercised reasonable diligence and care.” See Griffin v. Roanoke R. & Lumber Co., 140 N. C. 514, 53 S. E. 307, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 463.