Cited by

Also of all facts connected therewith which reasonable inquiry would disclose, and a purchaser thereof, knowing the possession to be in a third person, is chargeable with notice of such facts.”); Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288, 294 , 144 N.W.

49; Jefferson County Bank v. Erickson, 188 Minn. 354, 357 , ; and Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288, 295 , .

In Taylor v. Mitchell, 80 Minn. 492 , , and Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , , it is held that such books are competent evidence to show not only the falsity of representations as to the condition of the corporation, but also as a basis for expert testimony as to the condition of a bank and the value of its shares.

Nelson v. Carlson, 54 Minn. 90 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , ; Pennington v. Roberge, 122 Minn. 295 , ; Fawkes v. Knapp, 138 Minn. 384 , ; Kirby v. Dean, 159 Minn. 451 , ; Saupe v. St.

Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , , touches the point that representations as to the value of shares of bank stock by the chief officer and active manager of the bank in making a deal may be relied upon by the adverse party and is not mere trade talk.

Brown v. Andrews, 116 Minn. 150 , ; Adam v. Steinbrecher, 116 Minn. 174 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , ; Schmidt v. Thompson, 140 Minn. 180 , .

To the same effect are Pennington v. Roberge, 122 Minn. 295 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , ;, Fawkes v. Knapp, 138 Minn. 384 , , and other cases too numerous for citation.

One may not stop his ears and shut his eyes and then say he neither heard nor saw anything to put him upon inquiry, or, as was said in Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288, 295 , , a failure to make inquiry may be regarded as an intentional avoidance of the truth which it would have disclosed.

Lindquist v. Gibbs, 122 Minn. 205 , ; Pennington v. Roberge, 122 Minn. 295 , ; Drake v. Fairmont D. T. & B. Co. 129 Minn. 145 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , .

The rule applies with particular force to those dealing in lands with actual knowledge of the possession of some third person, as in the case at bar.” *50 It was held in Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , , that a failure to make inquiry may he regarded as an intentional avoidance of the truth which it would have disclosed.

Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , .

MacLaren v. Cochran, 44 Minn. 255 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288, 292 , .

238; Wolf v. Zabel, 44 Minn. 90 , ; Northwestern Land Co. v. Dewey, 58 Minn. 359 , ; Thompson v. Borg, 90 Minn. 209 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , ; Oxborough v. St.

238; Northwestern Land Co. v. Dewey, 58 Minn. 359 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , ; Niles v. Cooper, 98 Minn. 39 , , 13 L.R.A.(N.S.)

It is doubtful if the facts take the case out of the rule stated, and bring it within exceptions to this rule such as recognized in Brown v. Andrews, 116 Minn. 150 , 133 * ; Adan v. Steinbrecher, 116 Minn. 174 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , ; and Schmidt v. Thompson, 140 Minn. 180 , .

Bank, 114 Minn. 435 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , .

Brown v. Andrews, 116 Minn. 150 , ; Adan v. Steinbrecher, 116 Minn. 174 , ; Ludowese v. Ainidon, 124 Minn. 288 , .

The case is not within the decision of Adan *435 v. Steinbrecher, 116 Minn. 174 , or Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , .

Martin v. Hill, 41 Minn. 337 , ; MacLaren v. Cockran, 44 Minn. 255 , ; Pennington v. Roberge, 122 Minn. 295 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , .

Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , ; Errett v. Wheeler, 109 Minn. 157 , , 26 L.R.A.

Wilder v. DeCou, 18 Minn. 421 (470); Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , ; Johnson v. Gavitt, 114 Iowa, 183 , ; Morehead v. Eades, 3 Bush (Ky.)

§ 8590; Brown v. Andrews, 116 Minn. 150 , ; Adan v. Steinbrecher, 116 Minn. 174 , ; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288 , .