When the question of the effect of misrepresentation as to an essential element is presented for adjudication, it seems clear both from the authorities as well as on principle, that error as to an essential element of the contract, due to misrepresentation by the adversary party, makes a contract void no less than mistake not due to misrepresentation. A misrepresentation as to the contents of a written instrument will avoid it as against the adversary party who is misled thereby,1 even though the party who is guilty of such misrepresentation did not act under a wrongful motive.2

3 Born v. Castle, 175 Cal. 680, 167 Ac. 138; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Gortikov, 90 Miss. 787, 122 Am St. Rep. 324, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 464, 45 So. 363; Creech v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 174 N. Car. 61, L. R. A. 1918D, 1030, 03 S. E. 453.

4 Sheldon v. Crane, 146 la. 461, 125 N. W. 238.

5 Aetna Ins. Co. v. Brannon, 99 Tex. 391, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 548, 89 S. W. 1057.

1 Alabama. Cannon v. LindBey, 85 Ala. 198; 7 Am. St. Rep. 36, 3 So. 676; Beck, etc., Co. v. Houppert, 104 Ala. 503, 53 Am. St. Rep. 77, 16 So. 522; Bank v. Webb, 108 Ala. 132, 19 So. 14; Bates v. Harte, 124 Ala. 427, 82 Am. St. Rep. 186, 26 So. 898.

California. Haubert v. Mausshardt,

89 Cal. 433, 26 Ac. 899; Moore v. Copp, 119 Cal. 429, 51 Ac. 630.

Indiana. Callaway v. Mellett, 15 Ind. App. 366, 57 Am. St. Rep. 238, 44 N. E. 198.

Iowa. Williams ▼. Hamilton, 104 la. 423, 65 Am. St. Rep. 475, 73 N. W. 1029.

New Jersey. Alexander v. Brogley, 63 N. J. L. 307, 43 Atl. 888.

Rhode Island. Bowen v. Wolff, 23 R. I. 56, 49 Atl. 395.

Texas. American, etc., Co. v. Pace, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 222, 56 S. W. 377.

West Virginia. Biggs v. Bailey, 49 W. Va. 188, 38 S. E. 499.

Wisconsin. Standard Mfg. Co. v. Slot, 121 Wis. 14, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1016, 98 N. W. 923.

2 Standard Mfg. Co. v. Slot, 121 Wis.

371 Misrepresentation as to Essential Element Sec. 246