In equity the weight of authority is that one who is induced to enter into a contract by misrepresentation of a material fact may avoid liability on such contract, and in a proper case may have rescission.1 Such an innocent misrepresentation is, however, said to become fraudulent if the party who made such representation attempts to enforce the contract after he has discovered the truth.2

2 Graves v. Bank, 73 Ky. (18 Bush.) 23, 19 Am. Rep. 50.

3 Lieberman v. Bank, 2 Penn. (Del.) .416, 48 L. R. A. 514, 45 Atl. 901. (Partly on the ground that the report in which such misrepresentation existed was meant for the depositors only.) Savings Bank v. Albee, 63 N. H. 152, 56 Am. Rep. 501.

4 Atlantic Trust & Deposit Co. v. Union Trust & Title Corporation, 110 Va. 286, 67 S. E. 182.

5 Livingston v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 76 O. S. 253.

6 First National Bank v. Mattingly, 92 Ky. 650, 18 S. W. 940.

1 England. Denne v. Light, 8 De G. M. & G. 774; Wauton v. Coppard [1899], 1 Ch. 92.

United States. Smith v. Richards, 38 U. S. (13 Pet.) 26, 10 L. ed. 42; Turner v. Ward, 154 U. S. 618, 23 L. ed. 391; Wilcox v. Ry., Ill Fed. 435; Kell v. Trenchard, 142 Fed. 16, 73 C. C. A. 202 (modifying Trenchard v. Kell, 127 Fed. 5961; In re American Knit Good Mfg. Co., 173 Fed. 480, 97 C. C. A. .486.

Alabama. Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Warton, 113 Ala. 479, 59 Am. St. Rep. 129, 22 So. 288; Shahan v. Brown, 167 Ala. 534, 52 So. 737; Hafer v. Cole, 176

Ala. 242, 57 So. 757; Manning v. Carter, - Ala. - , 77 So. 744.

California. Wainscott v. Loan Association, 98 Cal. 253, 33 Ac. 88; Moore v. Copp, 119 Cal. 429, 51 Ac. 630.

Colorado. Pursel v. Teller, 10 Colo. App. 488, 51 Ac. 436.

Georgia. Newman v. Claflin Co., 107 Ga. 89, 32 S. E. 943.

Illinois. Mitchell v. McDougall, 62 111. 498; Borders v. Kattleman, 142 111. 96, 31 N. E. 19; Gillespie v. Fulton Oil & Gas Co., 236 111. 188, 86 N. . 219; Reed v. Pinney. 35 III. App. 610.

Indiana. McCormick v. Malin, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 509.

Iowa. Hunter v. Safety Core Co., 96 la. 573. 65 N. W. 828; Weis v. Grove, 123 la. 585, 99 N. W. 191; New York Brokerage Co. v. Wharton, 143 la. 61, 119 N. W. 969; Gray v. Bricker, - la. - , 166 N. W. 284.

Kentucky. Prewitt v. Trimble, 92 Ky. 176, 36 Am. St. Rep. 586, 17 S. W. 356; Titus v. Ins. Co., 97 Ky. 567, 53 Am. St. Rep. 426, 28 L. R. A. 478, 31 S. W. 127.

Louisiana. Calhoun v. Teal, 106 La. 47, 30 So. 288.

Maine. Jordan v. Stevens, 51 Me. 78, 81 Am. Dec. 556.

Massachusetts. Spurr v. Benedict, 99 Mass. 463; Roberts v. French, 163

Mass. 60, 25 Am. St. Rep. 611, 10 L. R. A. 656, 26 N. E. 416; Keene v. Demelman, 172 Mass. 17, 51 N. E. 188; Long v. Inhabitants of Athol, 196 Mass. 497, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 96, 82 N. E. 665.

Michigan. Crips v. Towsley, 73 Mich. 395, 41 N. W. 332.

Missouri. Sachleben v. Heintze, 117 Mo. 520 [sub nomine, Sachleben v. Heinze, 24 S. W. 54]; Beland v. Brewing Association, 157 Mo. 593, 58 S. W. 1; Winter v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 160 Mo. 159, 61 S. W. 606; Milan Bank v. Richmond, 235 Mo. 532, 139 S. W. 352.

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

New Jersey. Eibel v. Von Fell, 55 N. J. Eq. 670, 38 Atl. 201; Straus v. Norris, 77 N. J. Eq. 33, 75 Atl. 980.

New York Berry v. Ins. Co.. 132 N. Y. 49, 28 Am. St. Rep. 548, 30 K E. 254; Bloomquist v. Farson, 222 N. Y. 376, 118 N. E. 855; Leary v. Geller, 224 N. Y. 56, 120 N. E. 31.

Ohio. Irwin v. Wilson. 45 O. S. 426, 15 N. E. 209; Manley v. Carl, 20 Ohio C. C. 161.

Oregon. Jeffrys v. Weekly, 81 Or. 140, 158 Ac. 522.

Pennsylvania. Fleming v. Ogden, 152 Pa. St. 419, 25 Atl. 639; Sutton v. Morgan, 158 Pa. St. 204, 38 Am. St. Rep. 84, 27 Atl. 894; Wilson v. Ott, 173 Pa. St. 253, 51 Am. St. Rep. 767, 34 Atl. 23; Braunschweiger v. Waits, 179 Pa. St. 47, 36 Atl. 155.

Tennessee. Trigg v. Read, 24 Tenn. (5 Humph.) 529, 42 Am. Dec. 447.

Texas. Henderson v. R. R., 17 Tex. 560, 67 Am. Dec. 675; Culbertson v. Blanchard, 79 Tex. 486, 15 S. W. 700; Moore v. Cross (Tex. Civ. App.), 26

S. W. 122; Carter v. Cole (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 369.

Utah. Adams v. Reed, 11 Utah 480, 40 Ac. 720.

Virginia. Linhart v. Foreman, 77 Va. 540; Rorer Iron Co. v. Trout, 83 Va. 397, 5 Am. St. Rep. 285. 2 S. E. 713; Herron v. Dibrell, 87 Va. 289, 12 S. E. 674; Wilson v. Carpenter, 91 Va. 183, 50 Am. St. Rep. 824, 21 S. E. 243; Grosh v. Improvement Co., 95 Va. 161, 27 S. E. 841.

West Virginia. Bhiestone Coal Co. v. Bell, 38 W. Va. 297, 18 S. E. 493.

Wisconsin. Miner v. Medbury, 6 Wis. 295; Porter v. Beattie, 88 Wis. 22, 59 N. W. 499; Beetle v. Anderson, 98 Wis. 5, 73 N. W. 560; Kathan v. Comstock, 140 Wis. 427. 122 N. W. 1044.

"It is immaterial that the misrepresentations were not made with dishonest motive. Honest belief in the truth of a statement of fact, made as an inducement to the consummation of a contract, does not relieve him making the statement of his legal liability therefor to one induced to act to his detriment thereby. Shahan v. Brown, 167 Ala. 534, 52 So. 737; Greil Bros. v. McLain, 197 Ala. 136, 72 So. 410; Henry v. Allen, 93 Ala. 197, 9 So. 579; Ball v. Farley, 81 Ala. 288, 292, 1 So. 253; Jordan v. Pickett, 78 Ala. 331; Munroe v. Pritchett, 16 Ala. 785, 50 Am. Dec. 203; Prestwood v. Carlton, 162 Ala. 327, 333, 50 So. 254; Corry v. Sylvia y Cia, 192 Ala. 550, 68 So. 892; Code, Sec. 4298, 4299." Manning v. Car-, ter, - Ala. - , 77 So. 744.

Contra, Seddon v. Northeastern Salt Co. [1905], 1 Ch. 326.

2 "The case is not at all varied by the circumstance that the untrue representation, or any of the untrue rep defaulting agent, which amount another is going to advance to save him from losing his position;13 or as to the amount due on a bond;14 or as to the amount of debts owing by the vendee who seeks credit;15 or as to the amount already secured for investment in industrial enterprises in the town in which the land is sold;16 or as to the extent of personal injuries,17 are each a ground for rescission. A misrepresentation made to a contractor as to the quantity of work remaining to be done is ground for rescinding a contract entered into upon reliance upon such statements.18 Equity may grant rescission of an insurance policy before loss,19 as for a misrepresentation to the effect that the insured has never before been rejected by any other insurance company.20 Misrepresentation is a defense in a suit for specific performance.21 Misrepresentation as to the location and quality of land sold;22 or as to the fact that realty which is sold or exchanged is rented at certain rates;23 or as to the existence of a right of way, giving access to the property which is sold,24 is ground for refusing specific performance.

Bona fide material misrepresentations as to the value of collateral security for a note,3 or as to the quality,4 or title,5 or the location of a tract of land,6 as that the railway company which sold certain land owned the land between their tracks and the land thus sold, so that the land thus sold would have shipping facilities over such railway;7 or facts concerning the oil underlying the land conveyed,8 or the condition of property conveyed,9 or as to the area of a tract,10 as to the covenants in prior deeds affecting the use of the realty to be sold;11 or that if the wife of a partner joins in an assignment for the benefit of creditors, made by the firm, it will prevent insolvency;12 or as to the amount of the shortage of a resentations, may in the first instance have been the result of innocent error. If, after the error has been discovered, the party who has innocently made the incorrect representation, suffers the other party to continue in error and act on the belief that no mistake has been made, this, from the time of the discovery, becomes, in the contemplation of this court, a fraudulent misrepresentation, even though it was not so originally." Reynell v. Sprye, 1 De G. M. & G. 660.

3 Borders v. Kattleman, 142 111. 96, 31 N. E. 19.

4 Mitchell v. McDougall, 62 111. 498; May v. Snyder, 22 la. 525; Gray v. Bricker, - la. - , 166 N. W. 284; Irwin v. Wilson, 45 O. S. 426, 15 N. E. 209; Porter v. Beattie, 88 Wis. 22, 59 N. W. 499.

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

6 Spun- v. Benedict, 99 Mass. 463; Irwin v. Wilson, 45 O. S. 426, 15 N. E. 209; Culbertson v. Blanchard, 79 Tex. 486, 15 S. W. 700; McKinnon v. Voll-mar, 75 Wis. 82, 17 Am. St. Rep. 178, 6 L. R. A. 121, 43 N. W. 800.

7 Shahan v. Brown, 167 Ala. 534, 52 So. 737.

8 Braunschweiger v. Waits, 179 Pa. St. 47, 36 Atl. 155.

9 Manley v. Carl, 20 Ohio C. C. 161; Miner v. Medbury, 6 Wis. 295.

10 Flynn v. Finch, 137 la. 378, 114 N. W. 1058; Calhoun v. Teal, 106 La. 47, 30 So. 288; Keene v. Demelman, 172 Mass. 17, 25, 51 N. E. 188 [citing Noble v. Googins, 99 Mass. 251; Spurr v. Benedict, 99 Mass. 463; Schramm v. Refining Co., 146 Mass. 211, 15 N. E. 571; Rackemann v. Improvement Co., 167 Mass. 1, 57 Am. St. Rep. 427,44 N. E. 990] (The ground on which relief is placed, it will be noted, is mistake.) Newton v. Tolles, 66 N. H. 136,49 Am. St. Rep. 593, 9 L. R. A. 50, 19 Atl. 1092. A was negotiating with B for the purchase of two lots owned by B. A examined the assessor's books and found the two lots listed and an area in the column therefor. Thinking that this was the area of one lot, he doubled it and represented to B that that product was the area of the two lots, and had it inserted in the contract. The area on the assessor's books was the area of both lots. The . court said: "A court of equity has the power to permit a party to rescind a contract entered into in the manner above set forth on the ground of mistake if the other party will not accept performance of the contract omitting the particular stipulation inserted through mistake."

11 Wauton v. Coppard [1899], 1 Ch. 92.

12 Fleming v. Ogden, 152 Pa. St. 419, 25 Atl. 639.

In a proper case, damages may be awarded in equity for material misrepresentation.25 Compensation may be granted for work done under such contract.26