A material misrepresentation of fact in regard to the quality, character or condition of land which is the subject of a contract of sale, or in regard to its adaptability to specified uses, or the improvements upon it, or other such matters, furnishes ground for the rescission of the contract when made under circumstances entitling the purchaser to rely upon it.

Under this heading, we have abstracted the following cases holding misrepresentations concerning the quality, condition, and improvements of land sufficient to entitle the defrauded party to rescind in equity or at law.

Representations in an attractive circular illustrating and describing the defendant's houses and bungalows, that they contained modern conveniences, such as "steam heat, adequate sized boiler, and surplus radiation, complete, efficient, economized steam heating plant connected with boiler," upon which plaintiff relied and entered into a land contract for the purchase of a bungalow, which contract did not contain the above representations, it was held that evidence of such misrepresentations not merged in the contract was admissible for the purpose of establishing the charged fraud, and the misrepresentations sufficient to entitle plaintiff to a verdict for damages.43

Representations that the "Improvements were all in and paid for except the paving" while in fact the city had liens on the property for failure to pay assessments, held to be a material statement of fact, and if relied upon by plaintiff, entitled plaintiff to recover his damages.44

Representations that the defendant has sold 2,000 acres in the vicinity of the property conveyed, the land being in Cuba, and that the purchasers were going there in six months, and make their permanent homes there, while in fact no land had

42. Jandorf v. Patterson, 90 Mich. 40.

43. Bryan v. Houseman Spitzley Corp.. 213 Mich. 236.

44. State Security & Realty Co. v. Badger, 200 Mich. 104.

been sold to other settlers, held that the representations were not mere matters of opinion, and that they were false and material, entitling plaintiff to recover.45

Representations by the vendor of houses that they were all on brick foundations, honestly built, and that the best materials were used in the construction and that the workmanship was excellent, held that a purchaser who has no experience in houses or carpentry, and so informs the vendor, is entitled to rely upon his representations, and may rescind a contract of purchase.46

Representations by the vendor that he had examined his land and found the same plaster rock at a certain depth below the surface, that was to be found on adjoining land, where there were valuable quarries, with which the vendee was familiar, and upon which he relied upon making the purchase, held that defendant could recoup his damages, where the land proved to be worthless for plaster purposes in an action by the vendor for the balance of the purchase price.47

A representation by the vendor that the land was within three miles of the Village of Newaygo, was the best kind of farm land, would raise good crops, had good productive clay soil, well suited to fruit raising and had on it valuable timber, on which plaintiffs relied, not having seen the property until after purchase, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, and the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the premises had they been as represented and what they are actually worth.48

Representations made by the agent of the vendor that certain land was good for farming, and would raise crops of all kinds, that it was worth $50.00 per acre, and that certain acres that were swamp land, could be drained and make good farming land, held to be sufficient to entitle plaintiff to bring an action for fraud to recover his damages.49

Representations that certain farming land in the State of Alabama was choice stump land, high and dry, a very fine black

45. Painter v. Lebanon Land Co., 164 Mich. 260.

46. Culver v. Avery, 161 Mich. 323.

47. Morman v. Harrington, 118 Mich. 623.

48. Lion v. Henry Bradford & Co., 209 Mich. 172.

49. Earnhardt v. Hamel, 207 Mich. 232; Hutchinson v. Westbrook, 191 Mich. 484.

loam with a clay subsoil; ideal for farming purposes, free and clear of underbrush, without any mire or boggy portion, held sufficient to entitle plaintiff to damages where he relied on the presentations which were false and fraudulent.50

Representations made by the defendant that he owned a farm for which he had paid the sum of $4,000.00, that there was situated upon the land a good house and barn; that there was a family or man living upon and working said farm, all of which were false and fraudulent, held sufficient to entitle plain-tiff to a writ of capias ad respondendum and an action accrued for damages.51

Representations made in an exchange of farms that the defendant's farm was good for producing hay; that it was fertile and good for all kinds of crops, when made to the plaintiffs, husband and wife, the former understanding English imperfectly, and the latter at times insane, which representations were relied upon and were false, held sufficient to entitle plaintiffs to rescind.52

Representations by the defendant that he had as good a judge of pine as there was in Michigan examine his land and that he estimated about 5 million pine on the land, 1/2 white and 1/2 Norway, that this was a very low estimate; that the pine is of good quality; that the land is worth $5.00 per acre for farming purposes and that that was the price of farming land in that locality, held sufficient to entitle plaintiff to damages where the representations were false.53

The vendor's false representation as to the rate of interest on a mortgage subject to which he sells is material in an action based on fraud in a transfer, and one who obtains land in a trade and examines the land before the trade has a right to show that he was misled by the representations of the other party if they related to matters of which no one would adequately judge on a casual inspection, such as to the capability

50. Haener v. McKenzie, 188 Mich.

27.

51. Merlan v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge, I80 Mich. 303.

52. Blanpey v. Pike, 155 Mich. 384.

53. Halcomb v. Noble, 69 Mich. 398.

of the land for drainage and the reason why water was standing.54

In an exchange of lands defendant represented that the land was a certain distance from a railroad station; that the whole farm except eight acres was good, tillable land; that there were two springs of water and a good well; that the farm was four miles away from a grist mill and saw mill; while in fact all of the above representations were untrue, held, that plaintiff could rescind, he having relied on the representations and not having seen the farm before purchase.55