-Where one induced another to sell land to him on the representations that he means to devote it to a certain use, whereas he has the secret intention to put it to an entirely different use, is not regarded as a mere promise of future action, but as a statement of a material existing fact which will warrant the rescission of the contract.

The converse case is presented where a person is induced to purchase land of no great present value by false promissory representations concerning plans which would greatly increase

14. Albright v. Stockhill, 208 Mich. 469. Representations of defendant that if plaintiff would give his time to the business he could make $1,000 a year over and above his expenses, held a statement concerning a future fact and not a past or present one, and did not entitle plaintiff to rescind. Burch v. Stringham, 210 Mich. 48.

Representations by one who has been in actual occupation and cultivation and purports to speak from actual results in regard to its value and productiveness, and in the amount of timber thereon, and in showing the land to the purchaser took him by an unusual route, to keep him away from those who might have been likely to give him more accurate information, although much of the representations consisted of matters which must ordinarily rest in opinion merely, were sufficiently combined with representations of fact as to justify a rescission by the purchaser. Wright v. Wright, 37 Mich. 55.

15. Draft v. Herselsweet, 194 Mich. 604.

16. Hammer v. Martin, 205 Mich. 359; Bristol v. Bradiwood, 28 Mich 191; Allison v. Ward, 63 Mich. 128; Walker v. Casgrain, 101 Mich. 604.

its value, especially in the case of sales of suburban property or lots in new towns.17

Representations that a railroad will enter the town, that a depot will be built nearby; that a street railway will pass the property in question, that other buildings will be erected in the neighborhood; that streets will be laid out and graded; that the lot in question will beconnected with water and gas mains and sewers or the like, the accepted rule is that insofar as they relate to matters to be performed in the future by third persons, they are mere expressions of opinion, and not actionable fraud; and insofar as they constitute promises of future action by the vendor himself, they do not constitute ground for the rescission of the sale unless, at the time, he had a specific intention not to redeem them, and simply used this device to deceive and cheat the purchaser.18

A provision in a land contract "to grade and cinderize the streets within said subdivision, lay cement sidewalks in front of each lot, and plant shade trees on or before one year from date hereof" held sufficient representations to entitle plaintiff to recover damages upon breach of the provision.19

As a general rule the breach of a promissory representation or the failure to keep a promise made with reference to the subject of the sale, will not warrant a rescission of the contract, although it may give the purchaser an action for damages,20 but such an agreement as to the future may be made

17. Miller v. Andrews, 175 Mich. 351.

18. Day v. Scott, 153 111. 293, 38 N. E. 562; Mammaux v. Cape May Co., 214 Fed. 757; Wabash R. Co. v. Grate, 53 Ind. App. 583, 102 N. E. 155; Canon v. Farmers' Bank, 3 Neb. 348, 91 N. W. 585; Western Co. v. Novatny, 32 S. D. 565, 143 N. W. 895; Parsons v. Detroit & M. Ry. Co., 122 Mich. 462, 81 N. W. 343.

19. Gitson v. Yale Land Co., 212 Mich. 294.

20. Where the defendant made representations concerning certain premises and stated to the plaintiff that he should go himself upon the land, as their judgments might not agree, and if not satisfied with the land, the defendant would pay his expenses, but if satisfied, the plaintiff should pay them himself, this suggestion impliedly asserts that the defendant had himself exercised an intelligent judgment and in the absence of any intimation of any possible doubt of the facts being as represented, would be likely to dissuade the purchaser from going, and could not shield an integral part of the contract, where, for instance, a vendor represented that he would make certain improvements in a contract to sell lots on monthly installments, as fast as 25 per cent of the money received would pay for them, but failed to do so, it was held that the purchaser could rescind and recover the money paid.21