
    *Thomas Hambrick, plaintiff in error, vs. John Dickey et al., defendants in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    Judgment* — Injunctions—Misrepresentation.—In 1860 A bought of B a tract of land near which he had lived for some years, paying part of the purchase money, giving his note for the remainder, and going into possession and into the use of the land, and in 1867 permitted judgment to go against him for the balance of the purchase money; and in 1872 filed a bill in equity, setting up that A, at the time of the original sale, had falsely represented that a certain portion of the land, which was low ground, had been ditched and was then in cultivation, was capable of being kept dry and fit for cultivation, when, in fact, as experience had proved, this was not possible, as after a few years it had become unfit for use, and so continued. The bill set up that B was insolvent, and prayed that the execution which the bill claimed was for no more than the damage caused by the false statements of B might be enjoined:
    Held, That the Judge did not err in refusing a temporary injunction and in dismissing the bill for want of equity.
    Injunction. Judgment. Misrepresentation. Before Judge GrEEne. Henry county. At Chambers. December 4th, 1872.
    Thomas Hambrick filed his bill against John Dickey and Richard H.' Hightower, deputy sheriff of Henry county, containing substantially the following allegations: On December 21st, 1860, complainant purchased from Dickey a tract of land in Henry county, for $4,000 00, one-half to be paid in a few days, and the balance on December 25th, 1861. Dickey represented to him, as an inducement to make said purchase, that fifty acres of the tract consisted of exceedingly rich and productive bottom land; that the bottom land was dry, and that the stream of water, known as Cotton Indian, had a sufficient fall in its bed to keep said land free from water. The balance of the land purchased was poor, and much worn by cultivation. The representations as to the bottom land constituted the inducement to the purchase. Under these circumstances complainant paid half of the purchase money, received a deed from the vendor and went into possession of the land. He has endeavored to cultivate said land in different ways; *has had the ditches deepened, but has failed to make it remunerative on account of its being continually overflowed by water. Complainant was slow to believe that Dickey had perpetrated so great a fraud upon him, and consequently struggled on, experimenting in every way to render the land adaptable to cultivation, but has at length been driven to the conclusion that said Dickey knowingly and intentionally deceived him. Dickey recovered a judgment against complainant at the February term, 1867, of Henry County Court for the balance of said purchase money, has had the execution issuing therefrom levied by the deputy sheriff upon said land, and it is now advertised for sale. Dickey is insolvent, and unable to respond in damages. Complainant has only fully discovered since the rendition of said judgment the fraud perpetrated upon him. Prayer, that proceedings under the aforesaid execution be enjoined until the further order of the Court; that the aforesaid sale be decreed to be set aside, the deed delivered up, and defendant, Dickey, be directed to pay to complainant that portion of the purchase money already received by him; that the writ of subpoena may issue.
    After argument, and hearing the answer and affidavits presented, unnecessary here to be set forth, the Chancellor refused the injunction and dismissed the bill for want of equity, to which ruling complainant excepted.
    Speer & Stewart, by PeeprES & Howerr, for plaintiff in error.
    J. J. Froyd; J. R. Noran, for defendants.
   McCay, Judge.

.We see nothing in the statements of.this bill to justify the interference of a Court, of equity. We doubt if the complainant has even set forth a case that would have justified an action within four years after the statements were made. The statements of how completely the swamp could be dried — the fall of the stream, etc., are, in the main, mere matters of opinion. He was acquainted with the land, he examined it and *had as good an opportunity of forming an opinion as the defendant had. Indeed, the whole mistake seems to have been in not knowing the natural truth testified to by'the affidavits, to-wit: that however promising such land may appear for a year or two, before the roots, tufts, etc., have rotted, yet when that occurs, the surface is several inches lower than it was whilst they were there. But the complainant has, by his delay, lost his right, if he had any. His right, if he had any, is a cause of action for the deceit. He has allowed thirteen years to elapse. He has kept the land all that time, has allowed a judgment to go for the debt, and kept still several years after that. To permit him to revive his complaint and to set it up now, would, in our judgment, be trifling with justice.

Judgment affirmed.  