Cоnceding, but not deciding, that tbe plaintiffs are tbe real parties in interest and can maintain tbis action, C. S., 446, we are of opinion that tbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiffs is not sufficient to еstablish all of tbe essential elements of actionable fraud. Tbis is decisive of tbe case. Motion for judgment as of nonsuit was properly granted.
“The essential elements of actionable fraud or deceit are tbe representation, its falsity,
scienter,
dеception, and injury. Tbe representation must be definite and sрecific; it must be materially false; it must be made with knowledge of its fаlsity or in culpable ignorance of its truth; it must be made with fraudulent intent; it must be reasonably relied on by tbe other party; and be must be deceived and caused to suffer loss.”
Adams, J.,
in
Electric Co. v. Morrison,
Tbe principle apрlies to contracts and sales of both real and persоnal property.
May v. Loomis, supra; Tarault v. Seip, supra; Evans v. Davis,
In tbe present case there is no evidence that Cоburn made any representation, false or otherwise, as tо tbe number of acres in tbe boundary. Nor is there evidence that tbe land bad not been surveyed and tbe lines and boundaries chеeked and plat made. While there is evidence that Coburn sаid that Mr. Pierce bad made a map, there is no evidencе that tbis statement was not true, nor is there any evidence as tо what that map, if 'made, showed with respect to tbe acreage or with reference to tbe timbered land. All tbe evidenсe shows that tbe boundary includes timbered land north of the Millican Brаnch, but there is lack of certainty as to tbe quantity of land and оf tbe timber. Tbe statement of Coburn that there was just about enough timber there to finish paying for tbe land is. not only indefinite, but an expressiоn of opinion, and is not regarded as fraudulent.
In
Cash Register Co. v. Townsend, supra, Brown, J.,
says: “. . . Commendatory expressions or exaggerated statements as to value or
*558
prospects, or tbe like, as where a seller puffs up the value and quality of his goods or holds out flattering prospеcts of gain, are not regarded as fraudulent in law. It is the duty of the purchaser to investigate the values of such expressions of commendation. He cannot safely rely upon them. If he does, he cannot treat it as fraud, either for the purpose of maintaining an action of deceit or for the purpose of rescinding a contract at law or in equity.
Saunders v. Hatterman,
For full discussion of the apрlicable principles to factual situations similar to those here involved, see the opinions in cases of Gatling v. Harrell, supra; Tarault v. Seip, supra; and Peyton v. Griffin, supra.
It is pertinеnt to say also that there is of record a lack of sufficient evidence of agency to hold defendant liable for any representations of Coburn.
Holding that there is no evidence of fraud, it is unnecessary to consider the exception to evidence.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.