Add to footnote 2:
Hull v. Doheny, 152 N. W. (Wisc.) 417 (1915).
A misrepresentation as to the actual cost of the property is a material fact and naturally calculated to mislead the purchaser.1
A guaranty of a certain rental for premises has been held to be merely contractual and as not amounting to a representation that the property was then renting for the sums specified.2
Add to footnote 10:
Thaler v. Nieder-Mever, 185 Mo. App. 257; 170 S. W. 378 (1915); Jacoby v. Hollada, 133 Pac. (Wash.) 558 (1914). See also Sec.285.
Where a seller of agricultural land represented that it was high and dry, good agricultural land without mire, swamp, or boggy portions, such representation was a material representation of fact, and not mere seller's talk for which he could not be held responsible.3
But merely representing that a certain title is good, the statement being qualified by adding that another named person would not otherwise have taken a mortgage on the land, indicates that the representation is a mere opinion.4
1 Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 260 (1840). 2 Holmes v. Coalson (Tex. Civ. App.) 178 S. W. 629 (1915). 3 Haener v. McKenzie. 154 N. W. (Mich.) 59 (1915). 4 Stacey v. Robinson (Mo. App.) 168 S. W. 261 (1914).