The vice president of the bank did not testify that he made the loan in reliance upon the financial statement, or that he would not have made the loan except in reliance upon it; and in view of the fact that the bank would have made the loan to the Levins on their signatures without Cunningham's statement, that may be the reason why such evidence was not forthcoming. Where it is claimed that a bankrupt secured property or credit by means of a false financial statement, a discharge will not be denied to the bankrupt where there was no reliance upon the false statement. Banks v. Siegel, 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 309; In re Livermore, 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 93; In re Little, 2 Cir., 65 F.2d 777; In re Day, D.C. Mass., 11 F. Supp. 400. But even without regard to the fact that the evidence shows that the bank did not rely on Cunningham's financial statement in making the loan, there is a more cogent reason in law why the discharge should have been granted.
" The bankrupts appear to have been simple salesmen, out on their trucks all day long. They left bookkeeping and legal problems to others, presumably more wise — a course which at times at least has served as adequate protection to untutored business folk. In re Marcus, 2 Cir., 203 F. 29; In re Livermore, 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 93; In re Lovich, 2 Cir., 117 F.2d 612, 133 A.L.R. 673. They did keep, or cause to be kept, books honest, but not legally sophisticated. I believe the statute requires no more. Hedges v. Bushnell, 10 Cir., 106 F.2d 979; 1 Moore's Collier on Bankruptcy, 14th Ed. 1940, pars. 14.32, 14.33. They should not be penalized for failing to draw those legal conclusions which the bankruptcy court must — and I believe rather easily can — draw from the facts herein when it settles the bankrupt estate.
In re Kaplan, 141 F. 463 (E.D.Pa. 1905), In re Jaffe, 20 F.2d 370 (2nd Circ. 1927), International Shoe Co. v. Kahn, 22 F.2d 131 (4th Circ. 1927), In re Hochberg, 17 F. Supp. 916 (W.D.Penn. 1936), In re Livermore, 96 F.2d 93 (2nd Circ. 1938), Crue v. Timmer, 119 F.2d 415 (6th Circ. 1941), Eline v. Richard, 296 Ky. 283, 176 S.W.2d 697 (1943, reh. den. 1944), In re Savarese, 56 F. Supp. 927 (E.D.N.Y. 1944), Banks v. Siegel, 181 F.2d 309 (4th Circ. 1950), Rustuen v. Apro, 40 Wn.2d 395, 243 P.2d 479 (1952), Industrial Bank of Commerce v. Bissell, 219 F.2d 624 (2nd Circ. 1955), In re Freeman, 131 F. Supp. 437 (S.D.Cal. 1955), M-A-C Loan Plan, Inc. v. Crane, 4 Conn. Cir. 29, 225 A.2d 33 (1966). A second group noted that actual reliance is often difficult to prove directly; its existence (or nonexistence) must be inferred from various circumstances.