(n) Where a person, having land for sale, gave an authority in writing to sell it upon certain terms, containing the following clause: "I will guaranty that there is 45,000,000 feet, board measure, of pine timber, on the township; and the purchaser may elect, within thirty days of the purchase, to take it at a survey of all the standing pine timber at one dollar per thousand, or pay the said $45,000;" it was held, that this did not amount to a representation that there were in fact forty-five millions of feet of timber on the land. Hammatt v. Emerson, 27 Me. 308. So, in Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wend. 260, it was held, that a vendor of land is not liable for an expression of opinion of its value; but he is for a false representation as to its location, if the purchaser have not an opportunity at the time of as it is matter of law, it may be said that a false representation, in order to have the full effect of fraud, must relate to a substantial matter of fact, and not merely to a matter which rests in opinion, or estimate, or judgment. (o) One reason is, the difficulty of proving that a mere statement of opinion is false, for no one can know what another thinks, with any certainty, unless the opinion is of some tangible matter of fact plainly before one's eyes, and then it would generally be a falsehood as to fact. Another reason is, that if one person has an opinion, so may another; and if any one relies on mere opinion, instead of ascertaining facts, it is his own folly. But this rule must not be pressed beyond its reason. For though the statement be in form only of an opinion; yet if that opinion was one on which the other party was justified in relying, either by the relations existing between the parties, (p) or by the nature * of the case, and it can be made to appear that the opinion expressed was not in fact held, it is not easy to see why this should not be regarded as a false statement of a fact, or rather why it is not, strictly speaking, a false statement of a fact.

1 The fact that a seller of land had "reason to believe" that it contained less acres than he stated, will not conclusively establish his fraudulent intent. Salisbury v. Howe, 87 N. Y. 128.

The misrepresentation need not be made by the party whom it benefits, in order to constitute a fraud as against him. (q) It seeing the land. So, also, he is liable for a misrepresentation as to the cost of the land.

(o) Thus, misrepresentations by one contracting party to the other, as to the value or quantity of a commodity in market, where correct information on the subject is equally within the power of both parties, with equal diligence, do not, in contemplation of law, constitute fraud. Foley v. Cowgill, 5 Blackf. 18. And the same principle was applied in Baily v. Merrell, 3 Bulstr. 94, where a carrier brought an action of deceit for representing that a load was only 8 cwt., when it was 20 cwt., whereby two of his horses were killed. Judgment was arrested, because the carrier might have weighed the load himself. But false representations by a vendor of real estate as to its income or profits will invalidate the sale. Irving v. Thomas, 18 Me. 418; Hutchinson v. Morley, 7 Scott, 341. And see Maddeford v. Austwick, 1 Simons, 89; Wilson v. Wilson, 6 Scott, 540; Dobell v. Stevens, 3 B. & C. 623.

(p) See Shaeffer v. Sleade, 7 Blackf. 178.

(q) And it is for this reason, that if A trusts B upon the fraudulent recommendation of C, A is not left to his action for damages against C for the deceit, but the fraud of C invalidates the contract between A and B, and gives A the same right to retake the goods as if the fraud had proceeded directly from B himself. Fitzsimmons v. Joslin, 21 Vt. 129, is a very interesting and valuable case upon this point. In that case the creditors of a trader who was insolvent, but who wished to purchase goods, being unwilling to extend to him further credit, told him that they did not like to sell to him if he could buy elsewhere, and gave him the name of another merchant, and authorized him to refer to them. He attempted to purchase of this merchant, and being asked for references, gave the names of his original creditors, and was told to call again in half an hour. He did call again in the course of the day, and the purchase was effected. No inquiry was made by the vendor of the purchaser, as to his circumstances, nor did he give any assurances whatever relative thereto. On the same day, and after the purchase was effected, the purchaser met one of his original creditors, who told him that he had been called upon by the vendor, and that "he had given as good may be his by adoption: as if a seller knew that a false statement had been made by a third party, which was known to the buyer, and was operating upon his mind, and inducing him to complete the purchase;(r) if the seller only permits the buyer * to act under this delusion, he makes the falsehood his own, and it is his fraud. (s) And it is hardly necessary to repeat, what may be inferred from the general principles of agency, that a principal may commit a fraud by an agent, or may even be affected by the fraud of his agent, although personally honest. (t)

We have already seen that, generally, wherever one has a right an account of him as he could and not make himself liable," - "that he had told him that he, the purchaser, was a clever fellow, and was doing a thriving business in Vergennes; and that he, the creditor, had sold him goods, and he paid well, and he was ready to sell him more." At the time of this transaction, the purchaser was in arrears to these same original creditors, to the amount of several hundred dollars each, and their demands had actually been placed in the hands of their attorney at Vergennes, where the purchaser resided, for collection; and, as soon as they learned that this last purchase had been effected, they sent instructions to the attorney to attach the goods, as the property of the purchaser, upon their arrival at the place of destination. This was done, and, as soon as the vendor was informed of the insolvency of the purchaser, which was within a week after the attachment, he demanded the goods of the sheriff, offering to pay freight; but the sheriff refused to surrender them. The attachment was made upon suits in favor of the several original creditors; and it did not appear that either of these creditors, except the one above mentioned, had made any representation whatever in relation to the matter. And it was held, that the purchaser was responsible for the representations made by his creditor; and that the vendor, having been cheated and deceived by means for which the purchaser was legally responsible, might sustain trover against the sheriff to recover the value of the goods so attached.