Opinion of the Court. said he had been asking $15,000 for the mine, but that he would take $12,500; while Forman says he does not recollect that Silva made any statement as to the value of the mine, but that he heard Silva say he thought it was worth $15,000. Such statements are not fraudulent in law, but are considered merely as trade talk, and mere matters of opinion, which is allowable. Gordon v. Butler, 105 U. S. 553; Mooney v. Miller, 102 Mass. 217. Moreover, it is clear, beyond question, that Yerington did not purchase the mine upon Silva's representations as to its value, as we shall hereafter see. This disposes of all the alleged fraudulent representations, as arranged above, except the last, adversely to the complainant, and it is to this one that attention will now be directed. This charge is, substantially, that Silva represented to Yerington and Forman, when they visited the mine in January, 1884, and had gone through it, that he had shown them all the work which had been done in and about the mine that would throw any light on the quantity of ore therein. This representation is alleged to have been false and fraudulent, and well known by Silva to be such, because at a cut a short distance from the mouth of the main tunnel, at a point known as the "point of location," a little hole or shaft had been sunk which had been filled up, and was not observable at the time of the examination of the mine in January, 1884, and also because there had been a number of drill holes made in the sides of the ore chamber, and afterwards filled up before the examination in January, 1884, so that they were not observable at that time, which holes clearly developed the fact that the ore about the chamber was nothing more than a shell instead of a continuous body as it appeared to the observer. The existence of the plugged-up drill holes in the sides of the ore chamber is the worst feature of the case against Silva. They could not have been made by a former proprietor of the mine, as is slightly claimed in his behalf, for, as has been already shown in this opinion, Silva himself, or at least persons in his employ, had excavated that chamber after he had purchased it from one Edwards in 1876. And certain it is that the drill holes were found plugged up within a short time Opinion of the Court. after he had sold the mine to the complainant company, March 15, 1884. The question is, did Silva know of their existence at the time he sold the mine, and, having such knowledge, did he falsely represent to the complainant that he knew nothing of them, thereby inducing complainant to act upon such representations? Upon this question the evidence is somewhat conflicting. Yerington testifies that after going through the mine, he asked Silva if he had shown him the whole of the mine, and he replied that he had. And Forman testifies that Silva, in reply to a question from him, said that he had shown him all the work that had been done in and about the mine that would throw any light upon the quantity of ore in the mine, or the extent of the ledge or deposit. Silva admits that, in reply to a question by Yerington, he told him that he had shown him all the work that had been done in and about the mine, either by himself or under his direction. So that the question is narrowed down to simply this: Were said drill holes in existence at the time Silva made such statement; if so, had they been made by him or under his direction, or did he know of their existence? In his sworn answer Silva expressly "denies that he drilled any such hole or holes through the ore into the country rock or otherwise, or thereby or at all discovered the extent of said ore, or that he filled up said drill holes, or concealed them from view or kept them secret from complainant," &c., and in his testimony he also denies having any knowledge of their existence. He says that he drilled no holes in the mine, except what he had to do as a miner, and that he concealed nothing from Yerington when he showed him the mine. And again he says: "I showed Mr. Yerington all the work that was done in the mine that I knew anything of." There is no direct evidence going to show who drilled the holes. And there is nothing in the entire record to connect Silva with them, except the fact that he was the owner of the mine, and was in possession of it at a time when it is most likely they were drilled. But this circumstance alone should not outweigh the positive denial of Silva in his answer, and also his equally positive denial in his testimony, of his knowledge of the existence of said drilled holes. The VOL. CXXV-17 Opinion of the Court. law raises no presumption of knowledge of falsity from the single fact per se that the representation was false. There must be something further to establish the defendant's knowledge. Barnett v. Stanton, 2 Alabama, 181; McDonald v. Trafton, 15 Maine, 225. This rule is fortified by the consideration that had he known of the limited quantity of ore in and about the "ore chamber," Silva would hardly have gone to the expense and labor of starting a drift from the bottom of winze No. 1, and constructing it for a certain distance, before the sale of the mine, for the purpose of reaching the supposed downward extension of the ore in and about that chamber. Knowing that the ore body terminated within a few inches of the surface of the chamber, and then in the face of that knowledge actually constructing a drift on the 82-feet level, at enormous expense, for the purpose of getting under that limited quantity of ore, would not appear a reasonable thing to do by any one, especially by such an experienced and practical miner as Silva is admitted to have been. The testimony, therefore, and all the other facts and circumstances of record, do not substantiate complainant's theory of the case on this point; in other words, there is not a satisfactory case of fraudulent representations on this point made out-not such a case as would justify the interposition of a court of equity to set aside the contract under consideration on the ground of fraudulent representations. As regards the little hole or shaft that had been sunk at the "point of location" and afterwards filled up, so that it was not observable at the time of Yerington's visit in January, 1884, there is absolutely no testimony at all to show that Silva knew anything about its existence. He had done no work at that place, or very little at most, and was using the cut there as a sort of kitchen. The sides of the cut indicated that there was a ledge of ore there. It is admitted that Forman asked Silva why he did not "go down" on that ore, and that he replied that he considered the tunnel the best place to mine. Silva denies, both in his answer and in his testimony, that he ever knew that a shaft had been sunk at the point of location, and no one is found who can testify that he did know Opinion of the Court. anything about it. On the contrary, the former owner of the mine, one Edwards, testifies that he himself dug that shaft and filled it up prior to the time Silva purchased it, and that to his knowledge Silva did not know anything about that shaft. It is essential that the defendant's representations should have been acted on by complainant, to his injury. Where the purchaser undertakes to make investigations of his own, and the vendor does nothing to prevent his investigation from being as full as he chooses to make it, the purchaser cannot afterwards allege that the vendor made misrepresentations. Attwood v. Small, supra; Jennings v. Broughton, 5 De Gex, Macnaghten and Gordon, 126; Tuck v. Downing, supra. The evidence abundantly shows that Yerington had been willing to give $10,000 for the mine prior to the time he visited it and made his examination in January, 1884. He had made inquiries of various persons for months previous to that visit. Several experts in his employ had visited the mine, had taken samples of ore from it, and it must have been from reports thus received that Yerington had made up his mind as to what the mine was worth. From the letters of an agent (Woods) to Eddy, the testimony of the witness Boland, the testimony of the witness Anthony, Eddy's testimony, and from the testimony of Silva himself, there can be no doubt that Yerington had offered $10,000 for the mine several months before he had ever seen it. Thus showing that his examination of the mine in January, 1884, merely went to corroborate the reports that he had received of it from his experts, Forman, Bliss; and that it was upon such reports, and his own judgment after an examination of the mine, that he made the purchase of it. From all which it is clear to this court that the complainant has not proven his case, and the decree below is Affirmed. Counsel for Parties. HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY v. MISSOURI RIVER PACKET COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. No. 163. Argued and Submitted February 6, 1888. Decided March 19, 1888. The act of Congress of July 25, 1866, 14 Stat. 244, § 10 of which authorized a bridge to be constructed across the Missouri River at the city of Kansas, required that the distance of one hundred and sixty feet between the piers of the bridge, which was called for by the act, should be obtained by measuring along a line between said piers drawn perpendicularly to the faces of the piers and the current of the river; and as such a line drawn between the piers of the bridge of the plaintiff in error measures only one hundred and fifty-three feet and a fraction of a foot, instead of the required one hundred and sixty feet, it is not a lawful structure within the meaning of that act. When there is any doubt as to the proper construction of a statute granting a privilege, that construction should be adopted which is most advantageous to the interests of the government, the grantor. A decision by the highest court of a State upon the question whether the mere fact that a bridge, constructed under authority derived from the act of Congress of July 25, 1866, 14 Stat. 244, had not been constructed as required by the statute rendered the owner liable for injuries happening by reason of its existence to a steamboat navigating the river, irrespective of the question whether the accident was the result of the improper construction, presents no federal question for the decision of this court. THIS was an action brought in a state court of Missouri to recover damages for injuries to steamboats of the plaintiff below, caused by striking upon the piers of a bridge across the Missouri River, constructed by the defendant. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. Defendant sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Wirt Dexter and Mr. John J. Herrick for plaintiff in error, submitted on their brief. Mr. Sanford B. Ladd for defendant in error. Mr. John C. Gage was with him on the brief. |