after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
As аppears by the above statement, the gist of the action is the alleged deceit practised upon the plаintiff by the agents,attorneys and officers of the company to induce him to purchase from it a lot in Leadville, by representing that it had obtained a release of the right of all claimants to the land, and could put him into immediate possessiоn; -whereas, upon attempting to, enter upon the land, purchased, he found another in possession, who refused to surrender it, and thus he was kept out of possession from the time of his- purchase, March 27, 1879, to February 22, 1883, during which period he lost its rentаl value.
To this ground of complaint there are two obvious answers. In the first place, the plaintiff could have required the deliyery of the possession of the land to accompany the payment of the money. The lot being in the town might havе been readily reached, when the ability of the company to give possession could have been at oncе determined. The plaintiff .alleges that he used all diligence in his power to find out whether the representations of the оfficers, agents and attorneys of the company were true or false, but the inspection of the premises, the most natural and obvious mode of ascertaining *647 whether they were occupied by another, does not seem to have bеen resorted to. The law does not afford relief to one who suffers by not using the ordinary means of information, whether his neglect be attributable to indifference or credulity,-nor will industrious activity in other directions, to the neglect of such me„ans, be оf any avail..
Besides, it does not appear at what time the party in possession entered upon the land. The cоmplaint only 'alleges that Avhen — the time not being stated — the plaintiff attempted to fake possession, he found another person there, who, for aught that appears, may have gone on the land after the execution and- delivery оf the deed. There was at the time, according to the allegations of the complaint, a great struggle to obtain possession of lots among the crowd, of persons pressing to the town. owing to the report of rich gold discoveries within its immediate neighborhood. The claim of right to the land advanced by the occupant was founded only- upon her allegеd prior possession of it as a part of' the public domain of the United States, a claim which would seem, from the result of the ejectment suit against her brought by the company, to have been entirely worthless. The complaint alleges that the defendant represented that it had received a patent from the government of the United States for the premises, as well as for a large number of other lots in the town, and contains np averment that.this representation was untrue. It may thеrefore be fairly presumed, that upon the title thus conferred, the company subsequently evicted the intruder. The possеssion of a patent of the United States would have justified all the representations alleged, as to title and right of possession, and the purchaser might have called for . an inspection of that document if doubtful of the statements of the аgents and officers of the vendor.
In the second place, the covenant, in the deed for quiet possession mergеd all previous representations as to the possession, and limited the liability growing out .of them. Those representations were to a great extent, if not. entirely, mere expressions' of confidence in the company’s title,-and the right of рossession which followed' it, against all intruders.. The
*648
covenant was an affirmance of those statements in a form admitting of no misunderstanding. It was the ultimate assurance given upon which the plaintiff could rely, a guarantee against disturbance by a superior title. ' That covenant has not been broken. It is a covenant against disturbance by “ persons lawfully claiming ” the premisеs or any part thereof. If the occupant holds by a paramount title, and thus lawfully excludes the purchaser from possession, the covenant is broken. But it is not broken by a tortious disturbance. If the occupation is without right, the, remedy of the purchaser is to dispossess the intruder. His occupation does not constitute a breach of the covenant.
Beebe
v. Swartwout,
False and fraudulent representations upon the sale of real property may undoubtedly be ground for an action for damages, when the representations relate to some matter collateral to the title of the property and thе right of possession which follows its acquisition, such as the location, quantity, quality and condition of the land, the privileges cоnnected with it, or the rents and profits derived therefrom.
Lysney
v.
Selby,
2 Ld. Raym. 1118;
Dobell
v.
Stevens,
3 B.
&
C. 623;
Monell
v.
Colden,
Judgment affirmed.