¶1 If it be conceded that the representation in respect of the tobacco allotment was false and was made with knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, and with intent to deceive, nevertheless it appears from plaintiff’s own evidence that he knew of the reduction in the tobacco allotment before purchasing the land. The law will not permit one to predicate an action for fraud upon a representation which he knows to be false, for he cannot be deceived by that which he knows. Harding v. Ins. Co., 218 N. C., 129, 10 S. E. (2d), 599; Tarault v. Seip, 158 N. C., 363, 74 S. E., 3; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C., 515, 61 S. E., 384, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 240; Hart v. Newland, 10 N. C., 122; 23 Am. Jur., 942.
¶2 No error has been made to appear in the judgment of nonsuit. It will therefore be upheld.
¶3 Affirmed.