....627 ......408 Stickney etc. Coal Co. v. Goodwin. Bankruptcy.... 95 Me. 246 ....... Adverse Possession..126 Ala. 381...... 38 Stiff v. Cobb..... Stuckey v. Atlantic Coast etc. R. Damages...................... 60 S. C. 237. ..........842 R. Co...... Sudduth v. Sumeral................ ..Adverse Possession.. 61 S. C. 276. ....883 ......... Taylor v. Times Newspaper Co....Liquidated Damages. 83 Minn. 523........473 Assumption of Risk.. 60 S. C. 9.......824 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. PERRY v. BOYD. [126 Ala. 162, 28 South. 711.] VENDOR AND PURCHASER RESCISSION WHERE VENDOR WARRANTS TITLE.-A bill in equity to rescind a contract for the sale of land on the ground of misrepresentations and fraud by the vendor may be maintained, although the vendee may also sue at law upon the covenants of warranty contained in the deed. (p. 19.) VENDOR AND PURCHASER-RESCISSION FOR MISREPRESENTATION.-A material fact misrepresented by the vendor and relied and acted upon by the vendee entitles the latter to a rescission of a contract for the sale of land. (p. 19.) VENDOR AND PURCHASER.-ON RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE LAND THE VENDEE IS ENTITLED to the purchase money, if paid, and if not paid, to an injunction against its collection, without regard to the solvency of the vendor. (p. 19.) VENDOR AND PURCHASER-RESCISSION, RIGHT OF, NEED NOT BE DELAYED UNTIL INJURY ACCRUES.-If a purchaser has been induced to enter into a contract for the sale of land by the misrepresentations of the vendor as to any matter affecting the enjoyment of the rights intended to be conferred by the contract, the purchaser need not wait until the enjoyment is actually disturbed or interfered with, before filing his bill for a rescission. (p. 19.) VENDOR AND PURCHASER.-DUTY TO MAKE THE TITLE GOOD is upon the vendor, and not upon the purchaser. (p. 19.) VENDOR AND PURCHASER-RESCISSION OF CONTRACT-OFFER TO RECONVEY.-A refusal of the vendor, upon demand, to rescind a contract for the conveyance of land, dispenses with the necessity of a formal offer to reconvey. (p. 20.) VENDOR AND PURCHASER-RESCISSION OF CONTRACT.-TENDER OF DEED reconveying property held under Am. St. Rep., Vol. LXXXV-2 (17) a contract of sale is not essential to the rescission of the contract on the ground of fraud. (p. 20.) VENDOR AND VENDEE-RESCISSION OF CONTRACT.— RESTORATION OF POSSESSION or abandonment of the property is not essentially a prerequisite to the rescission of a contract for its sale. (p. 20.) Bill for the rescission of a contract for the sale of certain lands and water-power. It alleged that complainants purchased of the defendant certain lands, water rights, and water privileges and rights of way on Cypress creek, describing them particularly, including the right to construct or excavate a tunnel through or under any of the lands owned by defendant, from any point on such creek to any other point thereon, and to divert the waters of such creek through said tunnel. Defendant represented to complainant that he had a good title to, and right to convey, all of said property. As an inducement for making the purchase, defendant represented that he owned all of the water rights and privileges on such creek for a distance of five miles, together with the right to tunnel through a certain hill and divert the waters of such creek through such tunnel. Complainants, relying in good faith upon representations made by the defendant, paid him seven thousand dollars, and executed to him two notes for the sum of four thousand dollars each, due in three and six years from date, with interest and a mortgage to secure such notes, and also agreed to furnish the defendant with one hundred horse-power of water. Complainants went into possession of the property under a warranty deed. They purchased the property for the purpose of erecting a power plant to furnish electric light and power to manufacturing concerns, all of which was well known to the defendant. The complainants, relying upon the representations thus made by the defendant, at once proceeded to erect a dam across such creek and make other improvements upon such property, expending thereon the sum of seven thousand dollars. About four months after making the purchase and after having made such expenditures in good faith, complainants discovered that defendant never owned the right to divert the water of such stream through such tunnel, which constituted a material portion of the property purchased from defendant and a material inducement for complainants to make such purchase. As soon as complainants discovered the misrepresentations made by the defendant, they notified him thereof, and demanded that he either procure such right for them, or return the purchase money already paid, together with interest thereon, and surrender and cancel the |