So, where property thirty-three feet in depth was described as forty-six feet deep, the purchaser was allowed an abatement, although he was the occupying tenant (k).

And the effect of what would otherwise be notice may be destroyed, not only by actual misdescription or misstatement, but by anything calculated to deceive, or even lull suspicion, upon the particular point; as where lot A. (building land), was expressed to be sold subject to the rights of way reserved by the existing leases of adjoining property B., and a plan, specially referred to in the particulars, disclosed a carriage-way reserved over A. to B., and also a way reserved over A. to another lot C, but gave no indication of another way reserved over A. to B., the particulars and plan were treated as deceptive, and the purchaser was not held bound, under the particular circumstances, to have inspected the leases (l).

So, where a lessee sold, (by way of underlease,) part of a demised estate, and the particulars mentioned that the original lease contained a power of re-entry on breach of a covenant against certain trades being carried on upon the premises, and that the purchasers must enter into similar covenants, but did not state the fact that some underleases, already granted of parts of the property, contained no such covenants, the purchaser recovered his deposit at Law (m).

Where a lease, which contains the usual covenant to deliver up the premises in good repair at the end of the term, is sold, and any of the demised buildings have been removed, the fact should be stated: the omission of the buildings from the particulars is not sufficient (n).

Or of dimensions of property, although in occupation of purchaser.

Nor anything calculated to deceive, or lull suspicion.

Reference to deceptive plan.

Or deceptive statement as to liability under covenants in lease.

On sale of lease, removal of build-lugs which lessee must deliver up at end of term, must be stated.

(k) King v. Wilson, 6 Beav. 124.

(J) Dykes v. Blake, 4 Bing. N. C. 463; and see Gibson v. D'Este, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 542.

(m) Waring v. Hoggart, Ry. & Moo. 39; and see Dawes v. Betts, 12 Jur. 412, 709.

(n) Granger v. Worms, 4 Camp. 83.

As respects commendatory statements and descriptions in the particulars, we may refer to the observations already made in Ch. III.: a fair and correct description will, in the average, be found to be as agreeable with sound policy as it is with morality.

When a plan of the estate is attached to, or accompanies, the particulars, and is incorrect, it will be a material consideration with a Court of Equity whether the purchaser was thereby misled: but, if accurate, it is merely tantamount to a view of the property; so that when an estate was sold in lots, and it correctly appeared by the plan that lot 1, an Inn, was supplied with water by a drain leading from a well in lot 4, this was held not to amount to any engagement on the part of the vendor that there should be any reservation of a right to water in the conveyance of lot 4: and a bill filed by the purchaser of lot 1 for compensation, was dismissed with costs (o).

So, on the sale or lease of building-ground, the exhibition, on the plan, of intended improvements on the adjacent land, does not bind the vendor or lessor to execute such improvements (p): although it appears that a vendor would not be allowed to divide and appropriate the land in a different manner, so as to attract an occupancy and population entirely different from that which would probably have been produced by acting on the plan proposed and held out at the sale (q): nor, on the other hand, when a house is sold "with all its lights," does a statement in the particulars that adjoining land is building-land, authorize the vendor, or a purchaser of the adjoining land, to build thereupon, so as to obstruct such lights (r).

As to puffing statements in particulars.

Reference to erroneous plan.

To an accurate plan, i3 merely tantamount to view of estate.

To plan shewing intended adjacent improvements.

Effect of statement that adjoining land is building • land.

(o) Fewster v. Turner, 6 Jur. 144; and see Dykes v. Blake, 4 Bing. N. C. 463.

(p) Feoffees of Heriot's Hospital v. Gibson, 2 Dow, 301; Squire v. Campbell, 1 Myl. & Cr. 459; see

Schreiber v. Creed, 10 Sim. 9.

(g) Peacock v. Penson, 11 Beav. 355.

(r) Swansborough v. Coventry, 9 Bing. 305.

And it may be here remarked, that it is well established that where the same person possesses a house, having the actual use and enjoyment of certain lights, and also possesses the adjoining land, and sells the house to another person, although the lights be new, he cannot, nor can any one who claims under him, build upon the adjoining land so as to obstruct or interrupt the enjoyment of those lights (s).

In the construction of particulars of sale, the Courts have attached the following meanings to the following expressions; viz.,

By the description of a house as "brick-built," is understood brick-built in the ordinary sense of the word; not composed externally partly of brick, and partly of timber and lath and plaster (t):

By "clear yearly rent," is understood a rent clear of all outgoings, etc. usually borne by the tenant; but subject to such (as land tax) as are borne by the landlord (u):

The expression "farm," includes woodland, part of the estate, although not in the occupation of the Tenant (v);

The expression "free public house," is a misdescription when the lease contains a covenant to take beer from the lessor (w):

By the expression "ground rent," if unexplained, is to be understood a rent less than the rack rent of the premises: its proper meaning is the rent at which land is let for the purpose of improvement by building (x).

Vendor of house retaining adjoining land cannot obstruct lights.

Meaning of particular expressions.

"Brick-built house;"

" Clear yearly rent;"

"Farm;"

"Free public house;"

" Ground rent;"

(s) Per Curiam, 9 Bing. 309. (t) Powell v. Doubble, Sug. 30. (u) 2 Ves. sen. 500.

(v) Portman v. Mill, 3 Jur. 356. (w) Jones v. Edney, 3 Camp. 285. (x) Stewart v. Alliston, 1 Mer. 26.