Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

“ The credit was to be a pretense, as the piano to be delivered was to be one of a retail price not exceeding the cash received. It was not alleged that the piano was to be worth less than the cash paid, but, as is manifest, people were to be led into the dealing by the delusive apparatus of a promise known to be false when made (Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 40 L. ed. 709, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 508) , and false statements as to the value of the piano bought. The indictment was demurred to and the dumurrer was sustained. ”

“ It is unnecessary to consider whether every determination concerning the common law of fraud taken for granted by the act would be a decision based upon the construction of the statute, within the meaning of the act of March 2, 1907, chap. ”