The vendee in a land contract has the right to rely on the representations made by the vendor concerning the validity, nature, or extent of his title or interest.22 A person making representations as the defendant from the conse quences of his misrepresentations. Webster v. Bailey, 31 Mich. 36.

One, who during the negotiations for the sale of lands, professes to have peculiar scientific knowledge as to the probability of lands proving valuable for the production of oil and falsely represents the value for oil, of the lands he is endeavoring to sell, renders himself liable, if the purchaser relies upon such misrepresentations, and is deceived by such false assertions of value. Kast v. Bender, 25 Mich. 515; Pic-ard v. McCormick, 11 Mich. 68.

21. Laser v. Fowler, 114 Ark. 574.

22. Representations made by the vendor of land that he held title to the land, when in fact he only had an equity, in peril of being foreclosed and cut off by an overdue mortgage held to be material and where fraudulently made, entitled plaintiff to a rescission. Allen v. Talbot, 170 Mich. 664.

Representations by a party in an exchange of property that he paid $800.00 for his interest in an assignment to him of a land contract, which on its face showed the entire amount of the contract to be unpaid, save some of the interest, that everything had been paid on the contract, that he owned the entire interest therein, which representations were false, held to be material, and if relied upon by the plaintiffs, entitle them to the damage sustained. Wayne v. Herkimer, 167 Mich. 587.

Where plaintiff brought an action for replevin for a house built by the defendants upon land held by them under a contract of purchase, the plaintiff being vendor, where defendants had removed the house from the premises, it was competent for the defendants to plead as a matter of defense that they were induced to enter into the contract of purchase by false and fraudulent representations of plaintiff as to the state of his title. Cutter v. Wait, 131 Mich. 509.

Representations by the defendant that he was the owner in fee simple of certain land in Arkansas worth $1,600; that it was improved and under a good state of cultivation; that he was in possession of the land by a tenant and was receiving a portion of the crops then growing, and a defendant gave a warranty deed to plaintiff, in an exchange of lands; held sufficient to entitle plaintiff to recover where to his title is required to disclose the whole truth, and if he places himself in a position where his silence will convey a false impression of the truth, it is as much a fraud as the making of a positive false statement.23 It is not necessary that the purchaser search the public records with respect to the validity of the vendor's title, if the vendor made express representations concerning his title to land.24