77 Pa. 50 | Pa. | 1874
Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court,
When the treaty between the parties for the exchange was in progress, both Heckler and his wife were anxious to know whether ague and fever existed in the vicinity of the Indiana farm, and inquired of Holmes as to the fact. He represented that none existed, and that the health of that locality was good in this respect.
The facts show clearly that this was a misrepresentation on his part. It is evident Heckler and his wife made the absence of that disease a material ground for accepting the offer of Holmes. Now clearly, equity, under such circumstances, will not compel a man thus misled to perform specifically a contract of exchange at the risk of his health and that of his family. Even had there been no misrepresentation on Holmes’ part, it would be doubtful whether a chancellor would compel specific performance against one who was ignorant of the fact; but when this conduct of the plaintiff is added, there can be no hesitation. The other question does not necessarily arise under this view of the case. Decree affirmed •with costs, to be paid by the appellant, and the appeal dismissed.