TAYMON VS. MITCHELL. 499

the purchase without respect to, or confiding in, the statements
and representations made to him of their condition and value,
prior to, and at the time of the purchase.

The rule is, that though the seller of a chattel, of which be
has the possession, is ordinarily understood to warrant the
title, he is not bound to answer for the quality, unless under
special circumstances; unless he expressly warrants the goods
to be sound and good, or unless he makes a fraudulent repre-
sentation, or uses some fraudulent concealments concerning
them, which amounts to a warranty in law. 2 Kent's Corn.,
478.

It is not meant to be asserted, that every mere false asser-
tion of value, when no warranty is intended, will be 'a ground
to relieve a purchaser. If the assertion is a mere matter of
opinion, in which parties may differ—or if the seller indulge in
the common language of puffing, it will not amount to a war-
ranty. For, as expressed in the common maxim, simplex com,-
nwndatio non obliged. According to Mr. Chancellor Kent,
"an assertion respecting an article must be positive and une-
quivocal, and one on which the buyer places reliance, in order
to amount to a warranty. And if the vendee has an opportu-
nity of examining the article, the vendor is not answerable for
any latent defect, without fraud, or an express warranty, or
such a direct representation as is tantamount to it." 2 Kent's
Com., 485.

But if a party undertakes to make a direct representation of
a fact—even though he be mistaken as to the fact—if the
other party is induced to act upon such representation, equity
will relieve against the act equally as if it had been a wilful
and false assertion—for the injury is the same. McFerran vs.
raylor and Massie, 3 Cranch, 270.

As remarked by Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the
opinion of the court in that case, "he who sells property on a
description given by himself, is bound to make good that de-
scription; and if it be untrue in a material point, though, the
variance be occasioned by mistake, he must still remain liable-
for that variance.'