Fraudulent misrepresentations inducing the person to whom the misrepresentations are addressed to buy or sell property or enter into a contract with some one other than the maker of the representations will not give the defrauded person ground for rescinding the transaction,80 except in the following cases:

(1) Where the representations were made by one who was an agent or purported to be an agent of the person receiving the benefit of the fraud. It is immaterial for this purpose whether the representations were made within the apparent or actual scope of the agent's authority. The principal though innocent at the outset renders himself a party to the fraud if after knowledge of how his advantage was obtained he fails to surrender it.81

106 Ind. 81, 4 N. E. 433, 5 N. E. 908, 55 Am. Rep. 180; Edmunds v. Merchants' Transportation Co., 135 Mass. 283; Rodliff v. Dallinger, 141 Mass. 1, 4 N. E. 805, 55 Am. Rep. 430; Rogers v. Dutton, 182 Mass. 187, 65 N. E. 56; Hentz v. Miller, 94 N. Y. 64; Phelps v. McQuade, 220 N. Y. 232, 115 N. E. 441, 442; Consumers' Ice Co. v. Webster, 32 N. Y. App. D. 502,53 N. Y. S. 56; Hamet v. Letcher, 37 Ohio St. 356, 41 Am. Rep. 510; Decan v. Shipper, 35 Pa. St. 230, 78 Am. Dec. 334. And see Dean v. Yates, 22 Ohio St. 388; Moody v. Blake, 117 Mass. 23, 10 Am. Rep. 304; Barker v. Dinsmore, 72 Pa. St. 427, 13 Am. Rep. 607. Contra, Hawkins v. Davis, 8 Baxt. 506.

79 Stoddard v. Ham, 120 Mass. 383, 37 Am. Rep. 360. Compare Ex parte Barnett, 3 Ch. D. 123. And see Ellsworth v. Randall, 78 Iowa, 141, 42 N. W. 620, 16 Am. St. Rep. 425; Huffman v. Long, 40 Minn. 473, 42 N. W. 355; Kayton v. Barnett, 116 N. Y. 625, 23

N. E. 24. And if B buys from 8, erroneously supposing S to be acting as agent for a corporation against which B has a claim, he is liable to S for the price. Pissutielle v. Graham, 56 N. Y. Misc. 584, 106 N. Y. S. 1090.

80 Masters v. Ibberson, 8 C. B. 100; White v. Garden, 10 C. B. 910; Puls-ford v. Richards, 17 Beav. 87, 95; Lindsey v. Yeasy, 62 Ala. 421; Publishers v. Wilks, 105 Ark. 243,151 S. W. 280; Strong v. Smith, 62 Conn. 39, 25 Atl. 305; Equitable Life Assur. Soc v. Cosby (Ky.), 126 S. W. 142; Apple-ton v. Horton, 25 Me. 23; Nash v. Minnesota Ac. Trust Co., 163 Mass. 574,581,40 N. E. 1030,28 L. R. A. 753; Vass v. Riddick, 80 N. C. 6; Dangler v. Baker, 35 Ohio St. 673; Cason v. Cason, 116 Tenn. 173, 03 S. W. 80.

81 Mclntyre v. Pryor, 173 U. S. 38, 10 Sup. Ct. 352, 43 L. Ed. 606; Yeasie v. Williams, 8 How. 134, 12 L. Ed. 1018; Continental Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of Pa., 51 Fed. 884,2 C. C. A. 535;

(2) Where, though tfre misrepresentations were not made by one acting as agent of the party benefited, the latter was or should have been cognizant of them, or was the cause of their being made, or82 gave no value for what he received, or gave no value until after he had learned of the misrepresentations.83

(3) Where the misrepresentations induce a mistake of both parties to the contract of so vital a character as to justify relief on that ground.84