CAVEAT EMPTOR (Lat. let the purchas er take care). In every sale of real proper ty, a purchaser's right to relief at law or in equity on account of defects or incumbrances in or upon the property sold depends solely upon the covenants for title which he has received; 2 Sugd. Vend. 425; Co. Litt. 384 a, Butl. note; 3 Swanst. 651; Hodges v. Saun ders, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 475; Redwine v. Brown, 10 Ga. 311; Dorsey v. Jackman, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) C2, 7 Am. Dec. 611; unless there be fraud on the part of the vendor ; 3 B. & P. 162; Abbott v. Allen, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 519, 7 Am. Dec. 554; Miles v. Williamson, 24 Pa. 142; Etheridge v. Vernoy, 70 N. C. 713; Tuck v. Downing, 76 Ill. 71; Beale v. Seive ley, 8 Leigh (Va.) 658; Sutton v. Sutton, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 238, 56 Am. Dec. 109; Butler v. Miller, 15 B. Monr. (Ky.) 627; Allen v. Hop son, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 276; Nance v. El liott, 38 N. C. 408; Maney v. Porter, 3 Humphr. (Tenn.) 347; Brandt v. Foster, 5 Ia. 293; Rice v. Burnet, 39 Tex. 177; and consult Rawle, Cov. for Title, 5th ed. § 319. This doctrine applies to a sale made under a decree foreclosing a mortgage, and the pur chaser cannot rely upon statements made by the officer conducting the sales ; Norton v. Loan & Trust Co., 35 Neb. 466, 53 N. W. 481, 18 L. R. A. 88, 37 Am. St. Rep. 441.
In sales of personal property substantially the same rule applies, and is thus stated in Story, Sales, 3d ed. § 348: The purchaser buys at his own risk, unless the seller gives an express warranty, or unless the law im plies a warranty from the circumstances of the case or the nature of the thing sold, or unless the seller be guilty of fraudulent mis representation or concealment in respect to a material inducement to the sale; Benj.
Sales, § 611; Barnard v. Kellogg, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 383, 19 L. Ed. 987; Gstylord Mfg. Co. v. Allen, 53 N. Y. 515; Porter v. Bright, 82 Pa. 441; Mixer v. Coburn, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 559, 45 Am. Dec. 230; Dean v. Morey, 33 Ia. 120; Roseman v. Canovan, 43 Cal. 110; Arm strong v. Bufford, 51 Ala. 410; Biggs & Co. v. Perkins, 75 N. C. 397. It is the settled doctrine of English and American law that the purchaser is required to notice such qualities of the goods purchased as are rea sonably supposed to be within the reach of his observation and judgment. Under the civil law there was on a sale for a fair price an implied warranty of title and that the goods sold were sound, but under the com mon law there is a clear distinction between the responsibility of the seller as to title and as to quality; the former he warranted, the latter, if the purchaser had opportunity to examine, he did not; 2 Kent 47b; Pothier, Cont. de Vente, No. 184; See MISREPRESEN TATION; CONCEALMENT; SALES; WARRANTY.
This doctrine does not apply in an action for damages for inducing one by false repre sentations to take an assignment of a lease executed by one who had no title to the land; Cheney v. Powell, 88 Ga. 629, 15 S. E. 750. It was applied where the buyer of cows was a competent judge and had ample time, before buying, for inspection ; Dorsey v. Watkins, 151 Fed. 340.
Consult Rawle, Covenants for Title; Ben jamin, Sales; Story, Sales; 2 Kent 478; Leake, Cont. 198; 1 Story, Equity ; Sugden, Vendors & P.