certain manufacturing enterprises from taxation for ten years; Detroit v. Detroit etc. Plank Road Co., 43 Mich. 146, 5 N. W. 279, and Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa. St. 192, 2 L. R. A. 623, 16 Atl. 838, all arguendo.

Distinguished in Mobile etc. R. Co. v. Kennerly, 74 Ala. 573, holding that under the provision in the railway charter the company's property could only be taxed for municipal purposes in city of Mobile to the special limit prescribed.

13 Wall. 379-386, 20 L. Ed. 627, SLAUGHTER v. GERSON.

Misrepresentation which will vitiate a contract of sale must not only relate to a material inducement to the contract, but one which the complaining party could not verify, on which he relied, and by which he was actually misled to his injury.

Approved in United States v. Jones, 232 Fed. 223, holding misrepresentations by entryman, on final proof of homestead showing he claimed right to deduct time of military service, which was allowed by mistake of law, were not of material fact and did not authorize recovery of damages by United States; Vanderbilt v. Bishop, 188 Fed. 984, holding false representations as to age and variety of orchard trees and condition and quality of soil warranted rescission of sale contract; Chamberlayne v. American Law Book Co., 148 Fed. 317, representation to law-writer that he can complete certain treatise within time limit of contract is not basis of action for deceit; Kimber v. Young, 137 Fed. 747, 70 C. C. A. 178, in action for deceit in sale of corporate bonds allegations of false representations by defendant that he knew bonds were good and that they would be paid create no liability; Brown v. Smith, 109 Fed. 29, 31, holding purchaser having opportunity to verify vendor's representations as to plantation cannot set up falsity; Gardner v. Mann, 36 Ind. App. 698, 76 N. E. 418, where owner of city property exchanged it for land in another State on representation that it was raw prairie land, whereas it was desert, and neither party had seen it, city owner entitled to rescind; dissenting opinion in Rauh v. Waterman, 29 Ind. App. 369, 61 N. E. 743, 63 N. E. 47, court allowing recovery of goods, purchaser fraudulently representing goods sold by agent on four months' time; Richardson v. Walton, 49 Fed. 895, refusing to cancel a contract dissolving a partnership when plaintiff was not deceived as to the basis of settlement; Rocchi v. Schwabacher, 33 La. Ann. 1368, refusing damages on purchases of lard found to be of inferior quality when purchaser had opportunity to, but did not, inspect before purchase; City Nat. Bank v. Hickox, 4 N. M. 215, 5 N. M. 32, 16 Pac. 915, in action on note given as part consideration, holding purchaser not entitled to relief when he might have ascertained the value on inquiry; First Nat. Bank v. Worth, 2 S. D. 489, 51 N. W. 99, holding that a party could not recover damages for false rep

resentations unless believing them to be true he also acted on the faith of them and was injured; Sioux Banking Co. v. Kendall, 6 S. D. 547, 62 N. W. 378, to same effect, in action charging fraudulent representations as to promissory notes given as part of purchase money; Fowler v. MeCann, 86 Wis. 431, 56 N. W. 1086, holding where plaintiff did not rely on false representations as to amount of land cleared and value of farm he had not been damaged.

Distinguished in Engeman v. Taylor, 46 W. Va. 707, 33 S. E. 937, setting aside sale where opportunity for investigation fully open, but deceived party ignorant of valuation of building relied upon representations.

Equity will not relieve party from the consequences of his own inattention and carelessness.

Approved in Dare County v. Smith Const. Co., 152 N. C. 30, 67 S. E. 40, holding fact that county caused work on courthouse to be inspected daily during construction, without complaint to contractor, was conclusive that work was done according to contract; Bostwick v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 116 Wis. 430, 92 N. W. 254, holding policy received without examination, casual glance showing policy different, keeping same several months barred action to recover premiums; Dingle v. Trask, 7 Colo. App. 21, 42 Pac. 188, refusing relief from a chattel mortgage given as collateral security, executed without examination; Pierce v. Ten Eyck, 9 Mont. 353, 23 Pac. 424, holding a purchasing partner could not recover from selling partner a collection which he might have ascertained by examination of the books; Short v. Pierce, 11 Utah, 40, 39 Pac. 476, holding purchasers to blame for not investigating an alleged coal agency with a railroad company.

Where means of knowledge are available to both parties, if purchaser does not avail himself of them, or when he seeks verification of vendors' statements from other sources, and acts thereon, he will not be heard to say he has been deceived by vendor's misrepresentations.

Approved in Shappirio v. Goldberg, 192 U. S. 242, 48 L. Ed. 425, 24 Sup. Ct. 261, holding not actionable misrepresentations by vendor of area of land where correct description given in deed and abstract of title which vendee's agent undertook to investigate; King v. Lamborn, 186 Fed. 28, 108 C. C. A. 123, holding purchaser of coal land entitled to rescission for false representations as to amount of coal mined and sold in local market; McClure v. Glady Fork Lumber Co., 183 Fed. 84, 105 C. C. A. 368, holding purchaser of land described by definite ascertainable boundaries not entitled to reformation of boundaries at expense of adjoining owner; Murray v. Paquin, 173 Fed. 329, holding mistake as to boundary did not entitle purchaser to rescind when examination would leave revealed true boundary; Gilbane v. Fidelity & Casualty

Co., 163 Fed. 677, 90 C. C. A. 265, holding insurer not deprived of right to recover further premiums from one insured under employer's liability policy, where premiums based on wages paid, by fact it had access to insured's books when insured understated amount and from method of keeping books amount could not readily be determined; Curran v. Smith, 149 Fed. 950, 81 C. C. A. 537 (affirming Smith v. Curran, 138 Fed. 157), holding where contracting engineers entered into provisional contract to investigate pipe-line project, and if satisfactory to contract for its construction, and they investigated it for one month and then entered into final contract, they cannot defend breach on ground of misrepresentation; Heck v. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 147 Fed. 780, one signing release of cause of action for damages on receipt of money, without reading it, cannot avoid release on ground of misrepresentation of contents; Burk v. Johnson, 146 Fed. 215, 76 C. C. A. 567, one purchasing right to use copyrighted plan for establishment of mutual burial associations cannot rescind sale for misrepresentations as to rights under copyright where he had opportunity to ascertain rights; Pittsburg Life etc. Co. v. Northern etc. Ins. Co., 140 Fed. 893, where, in examination of condition of concern which purchaser bought, statement prepared by seller's officers for its own use was used, and after sale it was found that there were errors in it, action for deceit does not lie; The Protection, 102 Fed. 518, 42 C. C. A. 489, holding carrier estopped, shipper's representation as to machine's size made before lading signed and after carrier's agent saw them; Shappirio v. Goldberg, 20 App. D. C. 193, holding where vendee believed by mistake he was purchasing whole inclosure consisting of two lots from owner of one, under deed conveying but one, vendor on purchasing other lot was not required to convey to vendee; Clark v. Harmer, 9 App. D. C. 10, holding fact that contract was made subject to investigation did not relieve party from consequences of fraudulent representations when means of examination not available; Mitchell Mining Co. v. Hammons, 12 Ariz. 306, 100 Pac. 797, holding rescission of purchase of mining claim properly refused when purchaser had property examined by experts; Shuttlefield v. Neil, 163 Iowa, 479, 480, 145 N. W. 4, 5, upholding verdict for damages for false representation by vendor as to location of land; Moore v. Howe, 115 Iowa, 64, 87 N. W. 751, denying plaintiff's right to complain of valuations placed on goods where opportunity for inspection fully available; Mabardy v. McHugh, 202 Mass. 151, 132 Am. St. Rep. 484, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 487, 88 N. E. 896, holding false representations as to area not ground for avoiding sale where true boundaries were shown to vendee; Meland v. Youngberg, 124 Minn. 453, 454, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 775, 145 N. W. 170, holding purchaser investigating property entirely on his own account could not rescind for fraudulent representations; Morgan County Coal Co. v. Halderman, 254 Mo.

645, 163 S. W. 842, holding purchaser of coal lands who had examination of property made by experts could not rescind for fraudulent, representations of vendors; Mires v. Summerville, 85 Mo. App. 188, holding vendee estopped from charging vendor with fraud when well acquainted with land purchased, and on it at time purchase made; Garrison v. Technic Electrical Works, 59 N. J. Eq. 444, 45 Atl. 612, holding fact vendee afforded free and unrestricted opportunity to examine into subject matter of sale strong evidence of vendor's good faith; Aitken v. Bjerkvig, 77 Or. 402, 403, 150 Pac. 279, holding complaint stated cause of action for fraudulent representations to procure sale of land; Waymire v. Shipley, 52 Or. 474, 97 Pac. 810, holding sale of patent rights not void for fraud when purchaser had full means of inspection; Shores v. Hutchinson, 69 Wash. 335, 125 Pac. 144, holding purchaser of corporate stock not justified in relying on opinion of seller as to value based on balance sheets exhibited; Bostwick v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 116 Wis. 425, 92 N. W. 253, holding policy received without examination, casual glance showing different policy from that expected, keeping same for several months barred action to recover premiums; dissenting opinion in Rauh v. Waterman, 29 Ind. App. 359, 61 N. E. 743, 63 N. E. 46, court allowing recovery of goods where purchaser fraudulently represented that agent sold on four months' time; dissenting opinion in White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Bullock, 161 N. C. 16, 76 S. E. 640, majority holding whether buyer alleging fraudulent representations of seller used due diligence to examine property was for jury; Farnsworth v. Duffner, 142 U. S. 47, 35 L. Ed. 933, 12 Sup. Ct. 165, refusing to rescind contract when purchaser of land in West Virginia had investigated vendor's title and purchased on strength of his counsel's opinion; The Mattano, 52 Fed. 880, 3 C. C. A. 325, in a libel in rem for repairs to a vessel refusing a claimed deduction for waste when the defendant had means of knowing whether or not plaintiff had tools for the work in his yard; Henderson v. Henshall, 54 Fed. 324, 4 C. C. A. 357, sustaining action for damages for false representations leading to an exchange of lands, plaintiff being dissuaded by defendant from inspecting them; Bement v. La Dow, 66 Fed. 188, refusing to rescind contract for manufacture of patented medicine when the falsity of the representation relied on was easily ascertainable and opportunity for investigation had been afforded; New Orleans etc. Min. Co. v. Musgrove, 90 Ala. 429, 7 South. 748, refusing to rescind contract for sale of land on showing that maps were furnished and the lands were examined by purchasers and reported on by their expert; James v. Bocage, 45 Ark. 289, holding a purchaser of a machine could not, after trial and offer to pay a reduced price which vendor accepted, rescind the new contract thereby created: McGibbons v. Wilder, 78 Iowa, 534, 43 N. W. 522, holding a purchaser was under no obligation to have land surveyed by a sur

veyor to ascertain true boundaries and might rely on representations of owner; Collins v. Jackson, 54 Mich. 192, 19 N. W. 950, holding purchaser cannot recover damages for false representations as to value of stock of drygoods when he failed to make any examination of the stock; Cobb v. Wright, 43 Minn. 85, 44 N. W. 663, holding a grantor not entitled to recover damages for making a deed without consideration on false representation of grantee that whole title belonged to grantee; Ordway v. Continental Ins. Co., 35 Mo. App. 434, holding party compromising with insurance company, with knowledge of facts, cannot allege fraud; Long v. Warren, 68 N. Y. 432, refusing damages on sale of a farm as to existence of "quack grass" which purchaser could have seen on inspection; Schumaker v. Mather, 133 N. Y. 596, 30 N. E. 757, awarding damages on an exchange of stock farms as to number of stock when plaintiff made two attempts at examination, but was prevented by action of defendant and relied on his statements; Mahaffey v. Ferguson, 156 Pa. St. 169, 27 Atl. 23, holding that where a sale is induced by fraud the purchaser on discovery must, if he refuse to complete, notify his refusal promptly; Wyman v. Wilmarth, 1 S. D. 178, 46 N. W. 192, holding that where a general financial statement was made to enable a trader to obtain goods on credit, substantially true at the time it was made, a charge of obtaining goods on false pretenses could not be sustained; Washington Central Imp. Co. v. Newlands, 11 Wash. 214, 39 Pac. 367, holding that a false statement by vendor of his intention to build a hotel on adjoining land no ground for rescinding contract for sale of other land; Grim v. Byrd, 32 Gratt. 302, rescinding contract for sale of real estate for false representations by purchaser as to value of certain shares constituting the purchase consideration and solvency of the company; Lake v. Tyree, 90 Va. 724, 19 S. E. 789, refusing to cancel contract for purchase of building lots, when purchaser, being in the locality, did not inspect them, but relied on statement made in good faith by an agent who had not seen the land; Ludington v. Renick, 7 W. Va. 282, refusing to rescind contract for sale of land where the purchaser had investigated the amount of claims against the estate sold and acted on the information; Prince v. Overholser, 75 Wis. 650, 44 N. W. 776, holding that a verbal representation by vendor that a bounty land warrant would locate homestead land would not justify rescission of contract when purchaser had examined the warrant before buying; Farr v. Peterson, 91 Wis. 187, 64 N. W. 864, refusing to cancel contract for purchase of land which purchaser had previously visited and examined with a view to purchase.

Distinguished in Mather v. Barnes, 146 Fed. 1004, where purchasers of coal land who sent experts into field to examine same were deceived by acts of agent of seller, sale set aside; Kell v. Trenchard, 142 Fed.