It is not sufficient to charge fraud in general terms, but the specific misrepresentations must be set forth, and these must be stated distinctly and positively and not indirectly or by way of inference.113 Where it is charged that a conveyance was obgarded as a false representation of fraud entitling the plaintiff to rescind.

107. Williams v. Spurr, 24 Mich. 335.

108. Manning v. Drake, 1 Mich. 34; Wilson v. Eggleston, 27 Mich. 257.

109. Abbot v. Gregory, 39 Mich. 68; Lieberman v. Sloman, 118 Mich. 355.

110. McCredie v. Buxton, 31 Mich. 383; Pearce v. Ware, 94 Mich. 321; Farr v. Childs, 204 Mich. 19.

111. Parkyn v. Ford, 194 Mich. 184; Milbourn v. Maatsch, 211 Mich. 554.

112. Tong v. Martin, 15 Mich. 60; Fox v. Pierce, 50 Mich. 500.

113. Wilson v. Eggleston, 27 Mich. 257.

tained by means of fraud practiced by an agent of the defendant, the name of the person alleged to have so acted must be averred.114 It is further necessary, in alleging fraud or false representations as a cause of action, to aver distinctly the falsity of the representations in question, the defendant's intention by means of them to deceive or cheat the plaintiff and that the plaintiff relied on the representations made to him, and that he was thereby misled and induced to enter into a transaction to which he would not have assented, but for his reliance on such false representations.115