Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/871

 EICES V. JENNINOS. 857 �eeventeentli district in Pulton county, Georgia. For these lands the defendant Jennings agreed to pay the sum of $30,- 000, as foUows: $10,000 on the delivery of deeds; $5,000 on July 1, 1877; $5,000 on January 1, 1878; and the re- maining $10,000 at any time during the year 1878; and for that part of the purchass money which waa unpaid, a mort- gage was to be given on the Glade mines. When deeds were made by Henry Irbyto Jennings for those lands, in pursuance of this contract, the parties required that the purchase money should be divided into three parts — $10,000 for the Glade mines ; and the like sum, eaeh, for the Ghapman mines, and for lot No. 133 in Fulton county. Three separate deeds were made — two for the Hall county lands, and one for lot 133 in Fulton county. Ten thousand dollars was paid by Jennings to Irby on the delivery of the deeds, and a mortgage given on the Hall county lands to secure the residue of the purchase money, -which was evidenced by two notes for $6,000 eachj and one note for $10,000. The two $5,000 notes were paid at or before maturity, and a payment was made on the $10,- 000 note of $5,000, and ail interest up to January 1, 1879. �The defendant alleges that in the treaty for the purchase of these lands Henry Irby represented that the said lot 133, in Fulton county, contained a valuable silver mine, and was worth $15,000 or $20,000, and that upon the strength of these assurances he agreed to give, without any examination of the Fulton county lands, $30,000 for the three tracts of land, estimating lot 133 as worth at least $10,000, and be- lieving it to be worth $15,000; and that he would not bave purchased said lot 133, in Fulton county, or the said Hall «ounty lands, but for the statements of said Henry Irby in ref- erence to the value of said lot 133. He declares that he relied implicitly on the representations of Irby in relation to said lot 133, and had no opportunity to examine the same. Said lot was about 70 miles distant from the place where the con- tract of purchase was made. �The defendant says that ail the statements of said Irby in reference to the value of said lot 133 were false, and Irby knew them to be false when he made them; that, bo far ����