MISREPRESENTATIONS 133 



out any purpose to deceive. l If the purchaser examined 

 the tract himself or relied upon information obtained from 

 third persons rather than upon representations of the 

 vendor, he cannot ordinarily rescind the contract; 2 but 

 rescission was allowed in a Pennsylvania case, involving the 

 purchase of a thousand-acre tract, in which the vendee had 

 himself examined the land, where it was shown that in such 

 examination he had relied upon the guidance of an agent of 

 the vendor who had been instructed to show the vendee only 

 the best of the timber. 3 The right to set up misrepresenta- 

 tion as ground for avoidance of a contract may be waived 

 by dealings with the other party subsequent to a knowledge 

 of the misrepresentation. 4 Only when the representation 

 as to the amount of timber on the land is clear and explicit 

 will it be construed as a warranty, 5 but if the warranty is 

 established, timber on the tract so situated that it cannot be 

 logged will not be considered in the enforcement of the 

 warranty. 6 Warranty of title or quality will not be implied. 7 



1. Ark. See Fleischer v. McGehee, 111 Ark. 626, 163 S. W. 169. 



Ga. Martin v. Peddy, 120 Ga. 1079, 48 S. E. 420 (Deficiency in acreage appor- 

 tioned in price under Ga. Civ. Code); Harwell v. Martin, 115 Ga. 156, 

 41 S. E. 686; Lbr. Co. v. Cowart, 136 Ga. 739, 72 S. E. 37 (deficiency 

 in acreage, plea of fraud). 



Ky. Barnes v. Ewell, 155 Ky. 393, 169 S. W. 953; Chess Etc. Co. v. Simpson, 

 82 S. W. 601, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 893. 



La. Ash v. Hale, 68 So. 389; See Rogers v. Lbr. Co., 55 So. 702; Moore v. OBan- 

 non, 126 La. 161, 52 So. 253. 



Me. Hammatt v. Emerson, 27 Me. 308, 46 Am. Dec. 598. 



Mass. Prescott v. Wright 4 Gray 461. 



Mich. Jones v. Wing, . . Harr. 301. 



Ore. Copeland v. Tweedle, 122 Pac.. 302. 



Pa. Blygh v. Samson, 137 Pa. 363; 28 Atl. 996, 27 W. N . N. C 390. 



S. C. See Marthinson v. McCutcheon, 84 S. C. 256, 66 S. E. 120. 



Tex. Warner v. Munsheimer, 2 Tex. Civ. App., Sec. 393. 



Va. Shoemaker v. Cake, 83 Va. 1, 1 S. E. 387. 



Wis. Danforth v. Wharton 41 Wis. 191; Miner v. Medbury, 6 Wis. 295. 



U. S. Trust Co. v. Lbr. Co., 212 Fed. 229; Daniel v. Mitchell, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 

 3,562, 1 Story 172. 



Can. Woodward v. Lants, 44 N. S. 221. 



2. Ga. Harwell v. Martin, 115 Ga. 156, 41 S. E. 686. 

 La. Ash v. Hale, 68 So. 389. 



Tex. Huber v. Hill, 130 S. W. 219; Garrett v. Burleson, 25 Tex. Suppl. 41 . 

 U. S. See Trust Co. v. Lbr. Co., 212 Fed. 229. 

 Can. Woodward v. Lants, 44 N. S. 221. 



3. Brotherton v. Reynolds, 164 Pa. St. 134, 30 Atl. 234. 



4. Wylie v. Gamble, 95 Mich. 564, .55 N. W. 377; Waugh v. Hudson, (Tex. Civ. App.) 



159 S. W. 893. 



5. Mahaffey v. Ferguson, 156 Pa. St. 156, 27 Atl. 21 ; Hammatt v. Emerson, 27 Me. 



308, 46 Am. Dec. 598. See Hardison v. Dunn, 159 N. C. 579, 75 S. E. 940. 



6. Anderson v. Northern National Bank, 98 Mich. 543, 57 N. W. 808. Cf. Craw- 



ford v. Lbr. Co., 79 S. C. 166, 60 S. E. 445. Contra Swift v. David. 16 B. C. 275. 

 And tee Lbr. v. Middleby, 194 Fed. 817, 114 C. C. A. 521. 



7. Ala. Johnson v. Curry, 134 Ga. 583, 68 S. E. 298. 



(Footnote 7 continued on next page) 



