Fraud upon a buyer will generally consist of some misrepresentation in regard to the character of the property or in regard to the title, quantity, or value. Misrepresentations as to quantity and value have already been sufficiently discussed.5 Representations in regard to the character of the goods have also been considered both in connection with the law of warranty 7 and in connection with fraudulent representations by the seller.8 A representation in regard to goods will frequently be not only a warranty but, if fraudulently made, also ground for an action of deceit. False representations as to title, though to some extent involving a statement of law and sometimes also of opinion, involve also such assertions of fact as to constitute actionable fraud.9 And misrepresentations as to mortgages or other liens upon the property are likewise actionable if made with knowledge of their falsity.10 It seems also that offering goods for sale without disclosing a defect in the title or an incumbrance is itself a representation of good title and freedom from incumbrance. It is, at least, partly on this ground that warranties of title and freedom from incumbrances are implied.11 And if the seller knew of the defect in his title his offer to sell would amount to a fraudulent misrepresentation.12

App. 446; Camahan v. Bailey, 28 Fed. 519; Gavin v. Annistead, 57 Ark. 574, 22 S. W. 431; Bell v. Ellis, 33 Gal. 620; Burchinell v. Hirsh, 5 Colo. App. 500, 39 Pac. 352; Mears v. Waples, 3 Houat. 581; Fulton v. Gibian, 98 Ga. 224, 25 S. E. 431; Kitson v. Far-well, 132 HI. 327, 23 N. E. 1024; Reticker v. Katsenstein, 26 11I. App. 33; Hacker v. Munroe, 56 11I. App. 532; Thompson v. Peck, 115 Ind. 512, 18 N. E. 16, 1 L. R. A. 201; West v. Graff, 23 Ind. App. 410, 55 N. E. 506; Houghtaling v. Hills, 59 Iowa, 287, 13 N. W. 305; Reid v. Cowduroy, 79 Iowa, 169, 44 N. W. 351; Franklin Sugar Ref. Go. v. Collier, 89 Iowa, 69, 56 N. W. 279; Blaul v. Wandel, 137 la. 301, 114 N. W. 899; J. J. Smith Lumber Co. v. Scott County Garbage Ac. Co., 149 la. 272, 128 N. W. 389, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1184; Eelsey v. Harrison, 29 Kans. 143; Cross v. Peters, 1 Greenl. 376, 10 Am. Dec. 78; Edelhoff v. Horner-Miller Mfg. Co., 86 Md. 595, 613,39 Atl. 314; Watson v. Silsby, 166 Mass. 57, 43 N. E. 1117; Phinney v. Friedman, 224 Mass. 531, 113 N. E. 285; Zucker v. Karpeles, 88 Mich. 413, 50 N. W. 373; Reeder Bros. Shoe Co. v. Prylinski, 102 Mich. 468, 60 N. W. 969; Hlinois Leather Co. v. Flynn, 108 Mich. 91, 65 N. W. 519;

Sprague, Warner & Co. v. Kempe, 74 Minn. 465, 77 N. W. 412; Manheimer v. Harrington, 20 Mo. App. 297; Stein v. Hill, 100 Mo. App. 38, 71 S. W. 1107; Nichols v. Pinner, 18 N. Y. 295; Nichols v. Michael, 23 N. Y. 264, 80 Am. Dec. 259; Wright v. Brown, 67 N. Y. 1; Hotchkin v. Third Nat. Bank, 127 N. Y. 329, 27 N. E. 1050; Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Keeler, 65 Hun, 508; Des Farges v. Pugh, 93 N. C. 31, 53 Am. Rep. 446; Rodman v. Thalheimer, 75 Pa. St. 232; Dalton v. Thurston, 15 R. I. 418, 7 Atl. 112, 2 Am. St. Rep. 905; Hallacher v. Henlein (Tenn. Ch. App.), 39 S. W. 869; Red-ington v. Roberts, 25 Vt. 686; Garbutt v. Bank, 22 Wis. 384; Consolidated Milling Co. v. Fogo, 104 Wis. 92, 80 N. W. 103; Hart v. Moulton, 104 Wis. 349, 80 N W. 599.

5 In Gillespie v. Piles, 178 Fed. 886, 102 C. C. A. 120, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1, it was said that his intention would be "conclusively presumed." See also In re Hunter Rand Co., 241 Fed. 175, 183; Maxwell v. Brown Shoe Co., 114 Ala. 304, 21 So. 1009; Johnson v. Monell, * 41 N. Y. (2 Keyee) 655.

6 Supra, Sec. 1492.

7 Supra, Sec.Sec.968et seq. 8 Supra, Sec. 1492.