This rule as to the effect of misrepresentations is not adhered to in courts of equity. A false statement made by one of the parties to the other has been held sufficient ground for refusing specific performance of the contract, though there was no fraud, and the statement was not a term in the contract;88 and a false representation believed to be true at the time it was made, and which was no part of the contract, has been held sufficient ground for setting the contract aside.89

85 North British Ins. Co. v. Lloyd, 10 Exch. 523; Atlas Bank v. Brownell. 9 R. I. 168, 11 Am. Rep. 231; Hamilton v. .Watson, 12 Clark & F. 109; Guardian Fire & Life Assur. Co. v. Thompson, 6S Cal. 208, 9 Pac. 1; post, p. 274. See "Contracts" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 94; Cent. Dig. §§ 420-480; "Principal and Surety;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 89; Cent. Dig. §§ 82-S5.

86 Phillips v. Foxall, L. R. 7 Q. B. 666; Roberts v. Donovan, 70 Cal. 108, 9 Pac. 180, 11 Pac. 509; Evans v. Kneeland, 9 Ala. 42. But see Atlantic & P. Telegraph Co. v. Barnes, 64 N. Y. 385, 21 Am. Rep. 621; Jones v. United States, 18 Wall 662, 21 L. Ed. 867. See "Principal and Surety," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 50, 91; Cent. Dig. §§ 146-168.

87 Collen v. Wright, 8 E. & B. 647, 4 Jur. N. S. 357, 27 L. J. Q. B. 215, 6 Wkly. Rep. 123, 92 E. C. L. 647; Cherry v. Colonial Bank, L. R. 3 P. C. 24, 38 L. J. P. C. 49, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 356, 6 Moore P. C. N. S. 235, 17 Wkly. Rep. 1031, 16 Eng. Reprint, 714. And see Tiffany Ag. p. 368. See "Principal and Agent," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 186; Cent. Dig. §§ 447-450, 476-491.

88Lamare v. Dixon, L. R. 6 H. L. 414, at page 428. See "Specific Performance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 53; Cent. Dig. §§ 160-171 1/2.

89 Traill v. Baring, 4 De Gex, J. & S. 318, 33 L. J. Ch. 521; Redgrave v. Hurd, 20 Ch. Div. 13; Kewbigging v. Adam, 34 Ch. Div. 582; Brooks v. Hamilton, 15 Minn. 26 (Gil. 10); Smith v. Richards, 13 Pet. 26, 36, 10 L. Ed. 42;. Cowley v. Smyth, 46 N. J. Law, 380, 50 Am. Rep. 432; Florida v. Morrisou,

We have seen that the tendency of the common-law courts is to bring any statement which is material enough to affect consent, if possible, into the terms of the contract.90 Where the statement or representation is of this character - that is, where it is a "vital condition" - equity, says Sir William Anson, will give "the same relief, but upon a different and more intelligible principle." In equity an innocent misrepresentation, if it furnishes a material inducement, gives a right to avoid or rescind a contract where capable of recis-sion.91

Same - Equitable Estoppel

A representation by a party to a contract, relied upon by the other, may, in equity, create an estoppel against him. This is variously termed an "estoppel by conduct," or an "estoppel in pais," or an "equitable estoppel." Thus, in a suit based on a promise to make a provision by will in consideration of marriage, the chancellor, while admitting that the transaction amounted to a contract, based his decision on "this larger principle: that where a man makes a representation to another, in consequence of which that other alters his position, or is induced to do any other act which is either permitted or sanctioned by the person making the representation, the latter cannot withdraw from the representation, but is bound by it conclusively." 92

44 Mo. App. 529; Alker v. Alker (Sup.) 12 N. T. Supp. 676; Joice v. Taylor, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 54, 25 Am. Dec. 325; Taymon v. Mitchell, 1 Md. Ch. 497; Kent v. Carcaud, 17 Md. 299; Keating v. Price, 58 Md. 532; Thompson v. Lee, 31 Ala. 292; Converse v. Blumrich, 14 Mich. 109, 90 Am, Dec 230; Wilcox v. University, 32 Iowa, 367; Allen v. Hart, 72 I11. 104; Twitchell v. Bridge, 42 Vt. 68; Frenzel v. Miller, 37 Ind. 1, 10 Am. Rep. 62; Bankhead v. Alloway, 6 Cold. (Tenn.) 56; Foard v. McComb, 12 Bush (Ky.) 723. But see Tone v. Wilson, 81 I11 529; Groff v. Rohrer, 35 Md. 327. See "Cancellation of Instruments," Dee. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. § 1.

90 Ante, p. 261.

91 Anson, Contr. (8th Ed.) 155, 156, citing Derry v. Peak; 14 App. Cas. 347; Newbigging v. Adam, 34 Ch. Div. 582; Kennedy v. Panama, etc., Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 580. See "Cancellation of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-6.

92 Coverdale v. Eastwood, L. R. 15 Eq. 121. And see Brown v. Wheeler, 17 Conn. 345, 44 Am. Dec. 550; Thrall v. Thrall, 60 Wis. 503, 19 N. W. 353; Johnson v. Hubbell, 10 N. J. Eq. 332, 66 Am. Dec. 773; Com. v. Moltz, 10 Pa. 527, 51 Am. Dec. 499; Cowles v. Bacon, 21 Conn. 451, 56 Am. Dec. 371; Scudder v. Carter, 43 I11. App. 252; STEVENS v. LUDLUM, 46 Minn. 160, 48 N. W. 771, 13 L. R. A. 270, 24 Am. St. Rep. 210, Throckmorton, Cas. Contracts, 192; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578, 580, 25 L. Ed. 618; The Ottumwa Belle (D. C.) 78 Fed. 643. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 97; Cent. Dig. §§ 442-446; "Estoppel," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 52-56; Cent. Dig. §§ 121-142.