The demurrer included several grounds, the first of which and the one on which it was sustained was that the declaration does not state a case. In Commonwealth v. Quinn, 222 Mass. 504, the defendants were tried on an indictment charging them with larceny by means of false pretences. At the trial, as proof of a false pretence, evidence was admitted, subject to the defendants' exception, to show that one of the defendants, Fuchs, had stated to Bullard (the victim of the alleged larceny) that he (Fuchs) had been offered $42,000 for certain property which was to be transferred to Bullard in exchange for certain real and personal property owned by the latter.

These statements were false, and were made as of his own knowledge intending to deceive the sellers. These particular representations, it was ruled, following Commonwealth v. Quinn, 222 Mass. 504, 512, were not actionable. The judge further found that the sellers did not rely on any of the false representations and were not induced by them to enter into the agreement. The cases were heard by a judge of the Superior Court. His findings are not to be reversed unless upon a review of the evidence we are satisfied that he was plainly wrong.

The copy of the indictment against relator in the state of Massachusetts which was presented to the governor of Texas, was a good and valid indictment under the laws of Massachusetts, charging theft of money, and was a sufficient basis for the issuance of the executive warrant by the governor of the state of Texas. See Chap. 277, General Laws of Massachusetts, 1921, Comm. v. Quinn, 222 Mass. 504. Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris County.

Under Massachusetts case law, statements of opinion cannot give rise to a negligent misrepresentation claim. Softub , 53 F.Supp.3d at 255 (citing Zimmerman v. Kent , 31 Mass.App.Ct. 72, 575 N.E.2d 70, 75 (1991) ); seeCummings v. HPG Int'l, Inc. , 244 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Logan Equip. Corp. v. Simon Aerials, Inc. , 736 F.Supp. 1188, 1199 (D. Mass. 1990) ); Commonwealth v. Quinn , 222 Mass. 504, 111 N.E. 405, 408 (1916). Massachusetts courts look to the Restatement (Second) of Torts to determine whether a statement is one of opinion:

Moreover, mere opinions, predictions about future events, and statements that are true when made, are not actionable as misrepresentations under Massachusetts law. See Morgan v. Financial Planning Advisors, Inc., 701 F. Supp. 923, 927 (Mass. 1988) (statement true when made); Yerid v. Mason, 341 Mass. 527, 530, 170 N.E.2d 718 (1960) (false statements of opinion); Commonwealth v. Quinn, 222 Mass. 504, 513, 111 N.E. 405 (1916) (as opinion as to value not ground for civil liability cannot constitutes criminal offense); McCartin v. Westlake, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 221, 230 n. 11, 630 N.E.2d 283 (1994) (future business plans); Zimmerman v. Kent 31 Mass. App. Ct. 72, 79, 575 N.E.2d 70 (1991) (misrepresentation must be based on fact not expectation, estimate, opinion or judgment). Compare Starr v. Fordham, 420 Mass. 178, 187, 648 N.E.2d 1261 (1995) (a statement that misrepresents a speaker's present intention as to his future conduct is actionable). Count IV of the Amended Complaint alleges deceit.

Even in Massachusetts, Drew is of doubtful authority. Cases subsequent to Drew have held a person liable for false pretenses where he misrepresented his financial condition as an inducement to another to part with something of value. see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Quinn, 222 Mass. 504, 513-514, 111 N.E. 405 (1916), or where he misrepresented his present intention to perform a future act. see, e.g., McEvoy Travel Bureau, Inc. v. Norton Co., 408 Mass. 704, 709-710, 563 N.E.2d 188 (1990). Cf.

Flint v. Flint, 6 Allen, 34, 37. Kenerson v. Henry, 101 Mass. 152, 155. Commonwealth v. Quinn, 222 Mass. 504, 516. Johnson v. Lowell, 240 Mass. 546, 550-551.

Commonwealth v. Jeffries, 7 Allen, 548, 564-565. Commonwealth v. Quinn, 222 Mass. 504, 513-514. Commonwealth v. Levine, 280 Mass. 83, 94-95.

We hold the evidence here was competent, and overrule appellant's assignment of error. Commonwealth v. Quinn, 222 Mass. 504, 111 N.E. 405, 408(12); State v. Foxton, 166 Iowa 181, 147 N.W. 347, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 919, A.C. 1916E, 727; State v. Carter, 112 Iowa 115, 83 N.W. 715; State v. Lewis, 96 Iowa 286, 65 N.W. 295; People v. Robertson, 129 Mich. 627, 89 N.W. 340. A further assignment complains that the trial court failed to instruct upon all of the law of the case in compliance with Sec. 4070(4), R.S. 1939, Mo. R.S.A., sec. 4070(4), in that it did not define the words "false pretenses."

alse and fraudulent representations insinuated herself into the plaintiff's confidence and then persuaded the plaintiff to sign the agreements which provided for the purchase money mortgage, and then to execute and deliver the deed without getting the mortgage, by false and fraudulent representations upon which the plaintiff relied, to the effect that the defendant had acquired great wealth and had the present ability to command large sums of money in the hands of Mr. Avery, and that by adroit and cunning manipulation the defendant persuaded the plaintiff not to seek advice or to investigate for herself. Fraudulent misrepresentations as to the financial ability and standing of a person to whom credit is to be extended may be the basis of an action for damages or of rescission in equity. Morse v. Shaw, 124 Mass. 59. Andrews v. Jackson, 168 Mass. 266. People's Savings Bank of Woonsocket v. James, 178 Mass. 322, 324. Gurney v. Tenney, 197 Mass. 457, 465. Dexter v. Fuller, 217 Mass. 219. Commonwealth v. Quinn, 222 Mass. 504, 513. Commonwealth v. Anthony, 306 Mass. 470, 475. Am. Law Inst. Restatement: Contracts, § 471, Illustration 1; Restitution, § 8. These misrepresentations were not promissory in character.