On the other hand, misrepresentation as to an immaterial fact has no legal effect.1

13 Goff v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 131 La. 98, 59 So. 28. See Sec. 222.

14 Williams v. St. Louis Life Ins. Co., 189 Mo. 70, 87 S. W. 499.

15 Leonard v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 27 R. I. 121, 61 Atl. 52 [granting re-argument in 24 R. I. 7, 96 Am. St. Rep. 698, 51 Atl. 1049]:

16 Newton v. Tolles, 66 N. H. 136, 49 Am. St. Rep. 593, 9 L. R. A. 50, 19 Atl. 1092.

17 Flynn v. Finch, 137 la. 378, 114 N. W. 1058.

18 Buchanan v. Burnett, 102 Tex. 492, 119 S. W. 1141.

19 Hafer v. Cole, 176 Ala. 242, 57 So. 757.

20 Starwich v. Ernst, 100 Wash. 198, 170 Pae. 584.

21 National Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 44 Colo. 472, 98 Ac. 634.

22 Paulsrud v. Peterson, 109 Minn. 524, 122 N. W. 874 [reversing on rehearing Paulsrud v. Peterson (Minn.), 121 N. W. 898].

23 Boynton v. Hazelboom, 96 Mass. (14 All.) 107, 92 Am. Dec. 738.

24 Long v. Inhabitants of Athol, 196 Mass. 497, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 96, 82 N. E. 665.

1 Alabama. Queen Ins. Co, v. Young, SO Ala. 424, 11 Am. St. Rep. 51, 5 So. 116; Illinois Manufacturers', etc., Ins. Co. v. Zeitinger, 168 111. 286, 61 Am.

Thus where A means to buy nursery stock of B, and C induces A to buy of C by stating that he had taken B's place and sold the same quality of stock as B,2 or where a surety signing for the first time is told that the note signed by him is a renewal of a former note of his principal's, when in reality it is for an overdraft,3 misrepresentation does not exist. A statement in a building contract and a bond to secure the contractor, that the obligee is the owner is not materially false if he is rightfully in possession, although the legal title is in another.4 A slight misstatement as to the dimensions of the lot, which lot is shown to the purchaser,5 or a deficiency of seventeen acres in a tract which was represented to contain three hundred and seventy-three acres,6 or a slight misstatement as to the length of a lease of realty,7 do not render a contract of sale voidable. So in insurance, a misrepresentation to be operative must be material to the risk.8 If the representation is of an imma-

St. Rep. 105, 48 N. E. 179; Indiana Ins. Co. v. Osborn, 26 Ind. App. 88, 59 N. E. 181.

Kentucky. Deposit Bank v. Peak, 110 Ky. 579, 62 S. W. 268.

Maryland. British & Foreign Marine Ins. Co. v. Cummings, 113 Md. 350, 76 Atl. 571.

Massachusetts. Campbell v. Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 381.

Minnesota. Perine v. Grand Lodge, 51 Minn. 224, 53 N. W. 367.

New Hampshire. Perry v. Ins. Co., 67 N. H. 291, 68 Am. St. Rep. 668, 33 Atl. 731.

Pennsylvania. March v. Ins. Co., 186 Pa. St. 629, 65 Am. St. Rep. 887, 40 Atl. 1100.

2 Stone v. Robic, 66 Vt. 245, 29 Atl. 257.

3 Deposit Bank v. Peak, 110 Ky. 579, 62 S. W. 268.

4 Getchell & Martin Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Peterson, 124 la. 599, 100 N. W. 550.

5 Kafka v. Grant, 73 N. J. L. 451, 63 Atl. 900.

6 Roseboom v. Corbitt, 196 Fed. 627, 116 C. C. A. 301.

7 Kafka v. Grant, 73 N. J. L. 451, 63 Atl. 900.

8 United States. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Alpert, 67 Fed. 460, 14 C. C. A. 474.

Alabama. Capital Ins. Co. v. Aut-rey, 105 Ala. 269, 53 Am. St. Rep. 121, 17 So. 326.

Massachusetts. Campbell v. Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 381.

Minnesota. Price v. Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 497, 10 Am. Rep. 166; Perine v. Grand Lodge, 51 Minn. 224, 53 N. W. 367.

Missouri. Schroeder v. Ins. Co., 46 Mo. 174.

Nebraska. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 49 Neb. 811, 69 N. W. 125; Bankers' Union v. Mixon, 74 Neb. 36, 103 N. W. 1049.

New Jersey. Garrison v. Ins. Co., 56 N. J. L. 235, 28 Atl. 8.

Pennsylvania. March v. Ins. Co., 186 Pa. St. 629, 65 Am. St. Rep. 887, 40 Atl. 1100.

Vermont. Mosley v. Ins. Co., 55 Vt 142.

Virginia. Ins. Co. v. Kasey, 66 Va. (25 Gratt.) 268, 18 Am. Rep. 681.

587 Misrepresentation in the Inducement Sec. 367 terial matter,9 as of the coverture of the insured,10 or of the fact that all the brothers of insured were alive,11 or as to an acute disease of which the insured was cured in a short time, about ten years before his application for insurance,12 or as to immaterial and temporary ailments,13 or as to the age of the building insured,14 or its value, where the policy covers only the actual loss,15 or as to the dimensions of the building insured,16 it has no effect on the validity of the policy. Materiality is usually a question of fact.17