One who receives property under a contract and discovers that he has been defrauded by false representations, should thereafter treat the property as a reasonably prudent and careful man is bound to treat the property of another found in his possession, but not his own property. If the vendee discovers an undisclosed incumbrance, a defect in the title, a deficiency in quantity, fraud or false representations, or other circumstances which would justify him in rescinding the contract, but thereafter, having knowledge of such circumstances, exercises acts of ownership over the land without asserting any intention to rescind, he will be held to have waived his right to do so.81 It is an assertion of ownership such as precludes a subsequent rescission, if the vendee raises crops on the land.82

79. Mestler v. Jefferies, 145 Mich. 598.

80. Wright v. Peet. 36 Mich. 213.

81. Bennet v. Hickey, 112 Mich. 379; Hamburger v. Berman, 203 Mich. 78.

Where the parties deal at arms-length, acting in their own independent investigations, it was held plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof as to allegations of fraud and misrepresentations in an action to rescind in the purchase of a tract of land. Loud Lumber Co. v. Sterling. 203 Mich. 119.

Where a party who has been defrauded continues to deal with the party who has wronged him, as though such fraud had not been perpetuated upon him, or continues any course of conduct which indicates that he relies upon the contract, such conduct on his part will constitute a waiver of the fraud and an affirmation of the contract. Din-nan v. Bloomfield Hills Land Co., 214 Mich. 54, and cases cited.

82. Buxton v. Jones, 120 Mich. 522.