
    David Woods v. William Hall and Rankin McKee,
    From Orange
    A misrepresentation by the vendor of a fact which materially afleos the value of the property sold,' and of which the vendee is ignorant, avoids the sale.
    The employment of a puffer at an auction sale is a fraud upon the bidder;-! and a Court of Equity will direct a bond, given by a bid-del' for property bought under such circumstances, to bo delivered up.
    The Plaintiff alleged, that in July, A D. 1819, being at a tax-gathering, a traci of land belonging ¡o the Defendants, as tenants in common, was by them exposed at auction, the Defendant, Hall, being the auctioneer — that the land was represented to be fertile, and well adapted to the culture of tobacco — that there was a never foiling spring on it, and that it was, in all respects, an eligible situation for a settlement. That being anxious to locate one of his sons for life on land of the kind thus described* ?*e mentioned his views to the Defendant, the Plaintiff knew nothing of the land, and became desirous to i,urc*,lise> so¡°ty from the description given of it by Hall — that the sale was opened late in the day, at which ^¡me< iu>, the Plaintiff, was drunk — that the Defendant, Hall, perceiving his situation, after describing the land, as above, cried it at 25 500 — that the Plaintiff asked whose bid that was, and was informed by Hall, ¡hat one John Jordan was the bidder — that the said Jordan was present and did not deny it — that believing Jordan knew the land, and confiding in his judgment, the Plaintiff was induced thereby to yield implicit confidence to the representations of Hall, and thereupon bid one dollar more, when the land was struck down to h>m — tliar believing Jordan to be an aciual bidder, and fully confiding in the description of the land, be executed two bonds for §250 50 each, payable, in one and two years, according to the conditions of the sale, and received a covenant for a title. That soon after, he ascertained tiie land not to be of the. quality usually called tobacco land, and that there was no spring upon it, except one which regularly failed in thesummer. Ami further, thatseveral months after the execution of his bonds, he had discovered that Jordan was nota real bidder, but had been employed by the Defendants to run up the price, of the land which bad fallen upon the Plaintiff — that upon all these grounds, the Plaintiff liad determined not to pay his bonds, and had notified the Defendants thereof, who had brought an action, and recovered a judgment. The prayer was, that the contract might be vacated, and the Defendants enjoined from suing out execution upon their judgment.
    The Defendants, in their answers, denied any intention of defrauding the Plaintiff, or any body else — averred, that the laud and spring answred the description given of the n • and although they admitted the employment of Jordan to hid for them, they urged that being 'tenants in comino», they had determined to soli for the purpose of partition, and that the Defendant, Hall, intending to take the land in severalty, unless it, went for $500, authorized Jordan to bid for him up to that price,
    Much testimony was taken, which it is not neoessniy to stale, as all that is important will be found in the opinion of Isis Honor Judge Hall»
    
      Badger, for the Plaintiff,
    riled Parsley v. Freeman (3 T. It. 51) Eyre v. BumJ'nrd (1 East 318) Evans v. Bieknedl (6 Ves. 174) Burrows v. Lock (10 ditto 4TO) Clijjord v. Brooke {IS ditto 131) Hillv. Buckley (17 ditto 395) Cadman v. Horner (18 ditto 10) Deverell \ .Ld Bolton (ditto ¿OS') Drewe v.Corp (9 ditto 368) Wall v. Stubbs (1 .Had. II. 80) Uitkeof JSTorjblk v. Worthy i^l Camp. 337) Bacon v. Bronson (7 Johns. Oh IL -¿01) Oldfield v Bound* (5 Ves. :-08) Higginson v. Clowes (15 Ves. 523).
    
      JWash c¡- Winston, for the Defendants,
    riled Bromley v Ml (3 Ves. 630) Conolly v. Parsons (ditto 625 n.) Smith v.Clark (12 do. 477) Calverly v. Williams (t Ves, Jr. 210) Calcraft *. Jloebuck (do. 221) Grant \. Brunt (Cowp. 177) Lesse v. Crocker (1 ii. & B. 515) Twining v. MoHsons (2 Uro. C. C. 326).
   Hall, Judge.

— Two principal reasons are urged this case, against carry irsg the contract into effect, which die Plaintiff made for the purchase of the land in question. The first is, that the Defendant Hall imposed upon him by false representations, as to the sand having a good spring up;)» it. The other is, that lie was imposed upon by the same Defendant, in employing puffers at the sale.

It appears, that the tract of land contained one hundred acres ; and it is established by nearly all the witnesses whose depositions have been read, that the Defendant Hall represented the land as having a never failing spring upon it. For this purpose the d< positions of John Hay, John Hanks, William Crossed and others fum-{)een read. If has also been proved by the depositions of James Ray, John Hanks, William Crosset, John Cummins and Jesse Clark, that there was not a never-failing spring „p()n |f. James Ray says, he went upon the land with the Defendants after the sale, to ascertain whether there was a spring on it; that they found none-; that at the place, where it was supposed the spring was, there was wot the appearance of any. It appears from the depositions, that the spring had generally run a part of the year, but dried up in August or September; which without the aid of a well would altogether render it unfit for a settlement. This charge of misrepresentation is •established beyond doubt, without any conflicting testimony. Whether there was a spring on the land or not, was a circumstance, on which the value of the land, as a settlement, much depended. It was a circumstance toa, with which the Plaintiff might have been unacquainted, altho’ he lived in the neighborhood. The Defendant says, he had been informed there was a good spring on the land. If lie had made that representation, as from information, the effect upon the Plaintiff might have been different. But there is a marked difference between a ¡representation founded upon belief, or upon the information of others, and a representation that a fact is so.

It appears further from the depositions of Richard Nichols and John Jordan, that each of them was requested by Defendant Hall, to bid as far as $500 : that he would take such bid off their hands. Jordan says, the laud was put up at $500, and lie heard it cried at that sum. And the Defendant Hall admits, that the Plaintiff asked whose bid it was, and was informed by him that it was Mr. Jordan’s bid : that the Plaintiff afterwards bid one dollar more, and the land was knocked down to him. — . This was undoubtedly a fraud upon the purchaser, when it is considered how much men’s conduct and acts are influenced by the judgment and opinion of others. And so thought the Defendant, or why did he resort to it l It was thrown out that it was Jordan’s bid ; in other words, that Jordan thought the land was worth $500, and had hid that sum for it. S say it was thrown out as a bait, to induce Woods, intoxicated as bebas been represented to be, to bid a greater sum. But Jordan says he had made no bid. Then no bid whatever had been made for the land, until the Plaintiff bid $501. The representation then, that Mr. Jordan had bid $500, was totally without foundation. With respect to what was said about the quality of the land, the Plaintiff lived in the neighborhood, aud ought to have acquainted himself with that. It was a matter of judgment. There can be no ground of relief on that account. In questions of fraud, it might be a circumstance proper to. be considered.

The two principal charges in this case, 1 think, are es ■ tablished : 1st, the misrepresentation, as to the land having a never-failing spring upon it: 2d, the charge of' employing puffers at the sale. I think the Defendants should be enjoined from further proceedings in the suits, by them brought upon the bonds given for the purchase money of the land ; and that they should pay the costs at Saw, as well as the costs of this Court.

Per Curiam.

— Lot the injunction be perpetuated,  