, and a person should thereby be deceived and injured, he
would have a good cause of action against the seller. Suppose a ship
was decayed in places, and these were intentionally so concealed that
they could not easily be seen by one who was examining with the
intention of purchasing, and he was thereby misled, the seller would
be liable for the loss to the purchaser. Of course, the prudent course
is to obtain a warranty, or better still, whenever practicable, buy of
one who has established a reputation for honest, fair dealing.

Suppose a man purchases a piece of land, generally supposed to be an
ordinary farm, which contains, as he knows, a valuable coal mine, can
the seller after the public knowledge of the mine, recover the land or
a larger purchase price therefor? Has the purchaser deceived him? Did
the law require the purchaser to make known his superior knowledge
before purchasing? No, if it did, there would be no end to the
confusion to which such a rule would lead. It is within ordinary
experience that purchasers buy either knowing or supposing they will
reap advantages from their contracts of which the seller is ignorant.
There is no deception in this; but there is in withholding knowledge
from the buyer of the quality or condition of a thing that affects its
value, and which if known by him would probably prevent him from
purchasing. Suppose a horse is blind in one eye and the prudent horse
trader says nothing. Can the buyer recover? Ordinarily he could not,
for he ought to have looked, and if he did not know enough to look,
either he should have obtained a warranty, or have employed a
competent agent to purchase for him. Suppose the old trader, skilled
in his business, intentionally put his horse in the shadow so that the
defective eye could not be seen, then the seller would surely have
his remedy against him. If he put his horse there accidentally he
would not.

Is a wink a deception for which the winker must answer in the law? A
hardened dealer once went near a large meeting of men with a wagon
load of bottles containing cold tea. The thirsty crowd soon came
around. "One dollar a piece," he announced with a wink. The wink was
effective and the bottles were quickly sold. They were filled with
cold tea, and the buyers sued for the deceit that had been practiced
on them. They failed, the court said that a wink was not enough.
Another court might have decided otherwise.

=Deeds.=--In selling and buying l