Same - Contracts For The Sale Of Land

It is said by Sir William Anson that contracts for the sale of land are uberrimę fidei, and therefore within the exception to the rule that innocent misrepresentation does not affect the validity of the contract; but this is so only to a very limited extent, even in England,76 and probably to a less extent in this country. As a rule, the courts of law with us recognize no distinction in this respect between contracts for the sale of land and other contracts.77 A purchaser of land, it has been held, is not bound to disclose facts within his knowledge which render the land worth much more than the price he offers; as, for instance, the fact that there is a valuable mine under it.78 It has, however, been held that a misdescription of the land, or of the title, or of the terms to which it is subject, though made without any fraudulent intention, will avoid the contract.78 Courts of equity have granted or refused their peculiar remedies in the case of contracts for the sale of land because of innocent misrepresentation,80 but this has been because of principles peculiar to equity, and not because of the nature of the contract. The same principles have been applied, and the same relief granted or refused, in the case of other contracts.

And see Walden v. Insurance Co., 12 La. 134, 32 Am. Dec. 116; Curry v. Insurance Co., 10 Pick. (Mass.) 535, 20 Am. Dec. 547; Fowler v. Insurance Co., 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 673, 16 Am. Dec. 460; Bobbitt v. Insurance Co., 66 N. C. 70, 8 Am. Rep. 494. See "Insurance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 256; Cent. Dig. §§ 540, 51,9.

72 Green v. Insurance Co., 10 Pick. (Mass.) 402; Com. v. Insurance Co., 112 Mass. 136, 17 Am. Rep. 72; Washington Mills Mfg. Co. v. Insurance Co., 135 Mass. 505; Burritt v. Insurance Co., 5 Hill (N. Y.) 188, 40 Am. Dec 345; Browning v. Insurance Co., 71 N. Y. 508, 27 Am. Rep. 86; North American Ins. Co. v. Throop, 22 Mich. 146, 7 Am. Rep. 638; Clark v. Insurance Co., 8 How. 249, 12 L. Ed. 1061; Ripley v. Insurance Co., 30 N. Y. 136, 86 Am. Dec. 362; Short v. Insurance Co., 90 N. Y. 16, 43 Am. Rep. 138. Bee "Insurance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 256; Cent. Dig. §§ 540, 549.

78 Whulton v. Hardesty, 8 El. & Bl., at page 299; Schwarzbach v. Protective Union, 25 W. Va. 655, 52 Am. Rep. 227. And see GLOBE MUT. LIFE INS. ASS'N v. WAGNER, 188 I11. 133, 58 N. E. 970, 52 L. R. A. 649, 80 Am. St. Rep. 169, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 184. See "Insurance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 256, 272; Cent. Dig. §§ 51,0, 549, 572-582.

74 Bliss, Ins. 75; Yose v. Insurance Co., 6 Cush. (Mass.) 42; Campbell v. Insurance Co., 98 Mass. 381, at page 396; Goucher v. Association (C. C.) 20 Fed. 596; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Fletcher, 117 U. S. 519, 6 Sup. Ct. 837, 29 L. Ed. 934; Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Wise, 34 Md. 582; Ętna Life Ins. Co. v. France, 91 U. S. 512, 23 L. Ed. 401. See Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U. S. 183, 7 Sup. Ct. 500, 30 L. Ed. 644; Cable v. Insurance Co., Ill Fed. 19, 49 C. C. A. 216. See "Insurance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 256, 272; Cent. Dig. §§ 540, 51,9. 572-582.

75 London Assurance v. Mansel, 41 Law T. (N. S.) 225. See "Insurance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 256, 272; Cent. Dig. §§ 51,0, 51,9, 572-582.