SALE OF WATER-MEADOW. 479 



of a hanlcrvpt hij IJie dcacriplion of uncommonly rich Avator-mcadow 

 whereas in fact it is very imperfectly watered, this is not sucli a mis- 

 representation as will avoid the sale {Scott v, Hanson). And where an 

 estate consisting of fen land, and so described in the jiarticulars of sale, 

 was charged by a local bnt public act of parliament with drainage and 

 embanking taxes, of which the purchaser had no express notice, it was 

 held that he was not entitled to compensation for those taxes {Earraiul 

 V. Archer). A point of this kind arose in Hanks v. Palling, where the 

 defendant purchased at a public auction a lot comprehending a freehold 

 messuage and a fee farm rent of 21s. Bg the concisions of the sale, no 

 evidence was to le required of the receipt or payment, or existence of the 

 fee farm rent other than that declared by a certain conveyance, " nor 

 should any objection be taken to the title in consequence of the non- 

 payment or non-receipt," thereof. It was discovered that, in fact, the 

 rent had not been paid or received for 20 years before the sale ; and the 

 purchaser therefore contended that it was extinguished under 3 & 4 

 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 34, and had ceased to exist at the time of the sale ; 

 but it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that he was not entitled 

 to repudiate the contract on this ground, but must be considered to 

 have purchased under the conditions of the sale, the chance of the rent 

 being obtainable. The Court did not feel called upon to give an 

 opinion upon the point whether, after the expiration of the 20 years, 

 there was an absolute bar. The purchaser made an objection which 

 was excluded by the conditions of sale, and an agreement to purchase a 

 rent under the circumstances, taking the risk of it not having been paid, 

 was perfectly valid. 



A sale ly seeded tenders is in effect the same as a sale by auction — 

 per Lord Cranworth Ch. {Barlow v. Oslorne). It was established, in 

 SMlton V. Livius, that tlie printed p)articiilaTs under which a sale ly 

 auction proceeds cannot le varied ly parol evidence of the verdal statement 

 of the auctioneer at the time of the sale, either as to the parcels or quality 

 of the subject-matter of the sale ; and it makes no diflTerence that the 

 question arises on a sub-sale of the same subject-matter by the pur- 

 chaser. Here the lot 6 in question was described as "ten acres of 

 spring wheat on farther hill " ; and at the bottom of the handbill was 

 this memorandum — " The keep of all the fields, until Old Michaelmas 

 Day, will be sold with the crops, except St. George's Field (lot 15)." 

 The plaintiff bought lot G for £7 15s. per acre, and the auctioneer 

 made an entry in his sale-book at the bottom of the description of lot G. 

 The description and minute then stood as folloAvs : "Lot 6. Ten acres 

 of spring wheat on further hill, Mr. Shelton, £7 15s." Shortly after- 

 wards, a little conversation ensued between the plaintiff and the defen- 



