The party to whom the misrepresentation is made must believe such statement to be true, and must act in reliance on such belief. If the person to whom the representation is made is informed of the facts, no misrepresentation exists.1 Thus a misrepresentation as to the arrangement of a house, which vendee has inspected,2 or as to the execution of a bond, to indemnify against loss on which a second bond is given, where a true copy of the first bond was attached to the second,3 or as to the character of goods shipped by freight where the carrier's are made is familiar,11 renders such contract voidable. If the United States Government issued specifications which showed that a dam was backed with broken stone, sawdust, and sediment, when in fact it was backed chiefly by log crib-work which was filled with stones, such misrepresentation entitles the contractor to compensation for the extra cost due to such representation.12 A vendee may rely upon vendor's statement that the title is good, without examining the abstract of title which vendor has delivered to him and which shows the true title.13

9 Illinois. Manufacturers', etc., Ins. Co. v. Zeitinger, 168 111. 286, 61 Am. St. Rep. 105, 48 N. E. 179.

Massachusetts. Ring v. Assurance Co., 145 Mass. 420, 14 N. E. 525.

Michigan, Hann v. National Union, 97 Mich. 513, 37 Am. St. Rep. 365, 56 N. W. 834.

Nebraska. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 49 Neb. 811, 69 N. W. 125.

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

10 Queen Ins. Co. v. Young, 86 Ala. 424, 11 Am. St. Rep. 51, 5 So. 116.

11 Globe, etc., Association v. Wagner, 188 111. 133, 80 Am. St. Rep. 169, 52 L. R. A. 649, 58 N. E. 970 [affirming 90 III. App. 444].

12 Provident Sav. Life Assur. Soc. v. Pruett, 141 Ala. 688, 37 So. 700.

13Hoetand v. Western Union Life Ins. Co., 58 Wash. 100, 107 Ac. 866.

14 Manufacturers,' etc., Ins. Co. v. Zeitinger, 168 111. 286, 61 Am. St. Rep. 105, 48 N. E. 179.

15 Ins. Co. v. Osborn, 26 Ind. App. 88, 59 N. E. 181.

16 National Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 44 Colo. 472, 08 Ac. 634.

17 Hines v. New England Casualty Co., 172 N. Car. 225, L. R. A. 1917B, 744, 90 S. E. 131.

1 Arkansas. Stiewell v. Surety Co. 70 Ark. 512, 68 S. W. 1021.

Illinois. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Seitz, 214 111. 350, 105 Am. St. Rep. 108, 73 N. E. 585.

Kansas. Continental Ins. Co. v. Pearce, 39 Kan. 396, 7 Am. St. Rep. 537, 18 Ac. 291.

Maryland. Standard Horseshoe Co. v. O'Brien, 91 Md. 751, 46 Atl. 346.

Pennsylvania. Kister v. Ins. Co., 128 Pa. St. 553, 15 Am. St. Rep. 696, 5 L. R. A. 646, 18 Atl. 447.

Virginia. Trammell v. Ashworth, 99 Va. 646, 39 S. E. 593.

2 Trammel v. Ashworth, 99 Va. 646,. 39 S. E. 593.

3 Stiewell v. Surety Co. 70 Ark. 512,. 68 S. W. 1021. (The first bond was executed by B, as attorney in fact for A. The face of the second bond recited that the first was executed by A and B.) agent inspects such goods,4 is not operative. So a false statement made after the transaction is entered into can not be misrepresentation.5 So in insurance contracts, to avoid the policy the representation must deceive. If the company can be charged with knowledge of the truth, misrepresentation is not operative.6 So a false statement as to the condition of a business is not misrepresentation if the facts in question are shown by the books of the business and the party to whom such representations are made examines such books.7 In order to obtain rescission, it is not necessary to show that the misrepresentation was the sole inducement.8

By the weight of authority the fact that the party to whom such misrepresentation is made might have learned the truth by proper investigation, does not prevent him from avoiding such contract by reason of such misrepresentation.9 Such facts are to be considered merely as bearing on the probability of reliance upon such false statement. A misrepresentation as to the amount of work still to be done,10 or a misrepresentation as to the area of a tract of land with the boundaries of which the party to whom such representahave received some right, or incurred some liability substantially different from that so represented to him. Wherever misrepresentation is operative, and rescission is given, it is given although in the particular case the misrepresentation has not caused any financial loss.1 Thus if a vendor by mistake points out the wrong land and the vendee relies thereon, he may have rescission, even though the tract conveyed is as valuable as the other.2 Thus in insurance policies misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk makes the policy voidable, even though the loss was not due to the fact misrepresented.3

4 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Seitz, 214 111. 350, 105 Am. St. Rep. 108, 73 N. E. 585.

5 Commercial Bank v. Ins. Co., 87 Wis. 297, 58 N. W. 391.

6 United States. New Jersey, etc., Ins. Co. v. Baker, 94 U. S. 610, 24 L. ed. 268.

Illinois. Home Ins. Co. v. Menden-hall, 164 111. 458, 36 L. R. A. 374, 45 N. E. 1078; Lumbermen's Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bell, 166 111. 400, 57 Am. St. Rep, 140, 45 N. E. 130.

Iowa. Lamb v. Ins. Co., 70 la. 238, 30 N. W. 497; McMurray v. Ins. Co., 87 la. 453, 54 N. W. 354; Carey v. Ins. Co., 97 la. 619, 66 N. W. 920; Hart v. Accident Association, 105 la. 717, 75 N. W. 508.

Kansas. German Ins. Co. v. Gray, 43 Kan. 497, 19 Am. St. Rep. 150, 8 L. R. A. 70, 23 Ac. 637.

Minnesota. Anderson v. Assurance Co., 59 Minn. 182, 50 Am. St. Rep. 400, 28 L. R. A. 609, 60 N. W. 1095, 63 N. W. 241.

Nebraska. Rochester, etc., Co. v. Ins. Co., 44 Neb. 537, 48 Am. St. Rep. 745, 62 N. W. 877.

New York. Wood v. Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 382, 52 Am. St. Rep. 733, 44 N. E. 80.

Pennsylvania. Kister v. Ins. Co., 128 Pa. St. 553, 15 Am. St. Rep. 696, 5 L. R. A. 646, 18 Atl. 447.

South Carolina. Graham v. Ins. Co., 48 S. Car. 195, 59 Am. St. Rep. 707, 26 S. E. 323.

7 Colton v. Stanford, 82 Cal. 351, 16 Am. St. Rep. 137, 23 Ac. 16.

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

9 Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U. S. 165, 58 L. ed. 898; Long v. Inhabitants of Athol, 196 Mass. 497, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 90, 82 N. E. 665; Milan Bank v. Richmond, 235 Mo. 532, 139 S. W. 352; Mt. Hope Nurseries Co. v. Jackson, 36 Okla. 273, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 243, 128 Ac. 250.

10 Long v. Inhabitants of Athol, 196 Mass. 497, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 06, 82 N. E. 665.

As in cases of fraud, some courts hold that a misrepresentation is not operative if both parties have an equal opportunity to learn the truth.14 A wished to buy bolts of a certain size and submitted to B a sample. B in good faith believed that such bolt was a three-sixteenths-inch bolt; told A that it was of such size, and A in reliance upon such statement, gave an order for a quantity of three-sixteenths-inch bolts. "When such bolts were delivered A discovered the mistake and refused to accept or pay for them. It was held that A could have determined the size of the bolt by ordinary measurement; that he was not justified in relying upon B's statement as to the size; and that he could not avoid such contract.18 An innocent misrepresentation as to the identity of the parties to a note which was sold, was said not to be ground for avoiding such sale if the purchaser of such note had an opportunity, equal with that of the seller, of ascertaining the truth.16 As such a representation affects the identity of the subject-matter and renders the transaction void rather than voidable,17 the result seems erroneous.18

Misrepresentation of a fact upon which the adversary party does not rely, does not render the transaction voidable.18