The same principles are applicable to representations in sales of real estate as in sales of chattels. A statement by a vendor of real estate concerning his title, when stated as his conclusion from facts equally within the knowledge of the purchaser, is matter of opinion.27 But an assertion of title may be made as a fact.28 So statements in regard to particular incumbrances,29 or taxes,30 are statements of fact; as is a positive statement of

169 Pac. 636; Ward v. Jenson, 87 Or. 314, 170 Pac. 538; Byrne v. Stewart, 124 Pa. St. 450, 17 Atl. 19. See also Adan v. Steinbrecher, 116 Minn. 174, 133 N. W. 477; Dresner v. Becker, 88 Neb. 619, 130 N. W. 275; Vaughan v. Exum, 161 N. C. 492, 77 S. E. 679; Crompton v. Beedle, 83 Vt. 287, 75 Atl. 331, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 748.

25 The statement was therefore held not actionable in Bradley v. Oviatt, 86 Conn. 63, 84 Atl. 321, 42 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 828. C/. Henry v. Collier, (Okl. 1918), 169 Pac. 636.

26 Thus a statement falsely made that a man was doing a "safe business" and that his "note was sure to be paid" is fraud. Thompson v. Rose, 16 Conn. 71, 41 Am. Dec. 121. So a statement that a note indorsed by the firm of the speaker was as "good as the Bank of England," when in fact the firm was insolvent, was a fraud and it was held immaterial whether the speaker knew of the insolvency or not. Rothschild v. Mack, 115 N. Y. 1, 21 N. E. 726. Statements in regard to a corporation that it was doing a good business and making money were held actionable deceit when made by one who knew that the business was being carried on at a loss. Sherman ». Smith (la.), 169 N. W. 216. In Vermont, however, it was held that the false statement of a buyer that he was "safe to be trusted and given credit" did not amount to fraud. Jude v. Woodburn, 27 Vt. 415. But cf. Corey v. Boynton, 82 Vt. 257, 72 Atl. 987.

27 Martin v. Wharton, 38 Ala. 637; Fitzhugh p. Davis, 46 Ark. 337; Choate v. Hyde, 129 Cal. 580, 62 Pac. 118; Drake v. Latham, 50 111. 270; Conwell v. Clifford, 45 Ind. 392; Hoyt v. Bradley, 27 Me. 242; Perkins v. Trinka, 30 Minn. 241, 15 N. W. 115; Herman v. Hall, 140 Mo. 270, 41 S. W. 733; Fellows 9. Evans, 33 Ore. 30, 53 Pac. 491.

28 Carr v. Sanger, 138 N. Y. App. Div. 32, 122 N. Y. S. 593.

29 Carpenter v. Wright, 52 Kan. 221, 34 Pac. 798.

30 Wright v. United States Mtge. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 789. See the area of the land.31 Even though the boundaries are pointed out this is true 32 A peculiar Massachusetts view to the contrary on this last point," has been held inapplicable where the representation of area is accompanied by a further representation express or implied that the contents have been determined by survey.34 Representations of the value of land stand on the same footing as similar statements in regard to goods,35 and are generally not actionable, but may be if accompanied by false statements of the basis of opinion, or even otherwise under the principles stated in the following section.36 The statement that wells on the land with supply water sufficient for a stated number of cattle,37 or that the growing timber would make a stated quantity of lumber,38 have been held statements of also Matlock v. Shaffer, 61 Kan. 208, 32 Pac. 890, 37 Am. St. 270.

31 Morris tr. Courtney, 120 Cal. 63, 52 Pac. 129; Perkins Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 98 Ga. 388, 25 S. E. 556; Peake v. Walton, 52 III. App. 90; Ledbetter v. Davis, 121 Ind. 119, 22 N. E. 744; Moore v. Harmon, 142 Ind. 555, 41 N. E. 599; Worcester v. Cook, 220 Mass. 539, 108 N. E. 511; Steams v. Kennedy, 94 Minn. 439, KB N. W. 212; Beardsley v. Duntley, 69 N. Y. 577; Griswold v. Gebbie, 120 Pa. 353, 17 All. 673, 12 Am. St. 878; Cabot s. Christie, 42 Vt. 121, 1 Am. Rep. 313.

32 Lovejoy v. knell, 73 Conn. 368, 47 Atl. 082; O'Neill v. Conway, 88 Conn. 651, 92 Atl. 425; Estea v. (Morn, 91 Ga. 600, 18 S. E. 355; An tie v. Sexton, 137 111. 410, 27 N. E. 691; Boddy p. Henry, 113 la. 462, 85 N. W. 771, 53 L. R. A. 769; Speed v. Hol-lingsworth, 54 Kan. 436, 38 Pac. 496; Starkweather v. Benjamin, 32 Mich. 305; McGhee v. Bell, 170 Mo. 121, 135,150, 70 S. W. 493, 59 L. R. A. 761; Paine p. Upton, 87 N. Y. 327, 41 Am. Rep. 371; May v. Loomis, 140 N. C. 350, 52 S. E. 728; Cawston v. Sturgis, 29 Or. 331, 43 Pac. 656; Walling c Kinnard, 10 Tex. 508, 60 Am. Dec. 216.

33 Medbury v. Watson, 6 Met. 246,

39 Am. Dec. 726; Mooney v. Miller, 102 Mass. 217. These cases were followed in Mabardy v. McHugh, 202 Mass. 148, 88 N. E. 894, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 487, 132 Am. St. Rep. 484, on the principle of start deewtt, though the court admitted the doctrine was opposed to the weight of authority and probably undesirable. It may be questioned whether those who are trying to commit what is certainly a moral fraud can fairly complain if the previously existing law is tightened sufficiently to catch them.

34 Worcester v. Cook, 220 Muss. 539, 108 N. E. 511.

35 McCabe v. Kelleher (Oreg.), 175 Pac. 608, and see the preceding section.

36 See Van VUet Ac. Co. v. Crowell (la.), 149N.W.861; Thaler v. Nieder-meyer, 185 Mo. App. 257, 170 S. W. 378; Howard v. Duncan, 94 Neb. 685, 144 N. W. 169; Wustrack v. Hall, 95 Neb. 384, 145 N. W. 835; Sleeper p. Smith, 77 N. H. 337, 91 Atl. 866; Mount v. Loiseaux, 86 N. J. 511, 92 Atl. 593; Pate v. Blades, 163 N. C. 267, 79 S. E. 608; Robertson p. Prey, 72 Oreg. 599, 144 Pac. 128.

37 Bondurant v. Crawford, 22 la. 40. Cf. Hill v. Wilson, 88 Cal. 92, 25 Pac. 1105.

38 Longshore v. Jack, 30 la. 208.

opinion; and doubtless they might be phrased in such a way or the circumstances might be such that the holding would be right. But a positive statement that a certain amount of hay had been cut,39 that minerals were found on the premises,40 that the land is "rich," 41 or as good and productive as another farm,42 have been held sufficiently definite statements of fact to afford basis for relief.