Viscount Haldane:—

The real question in this case is whether the appellant, the purchaser of a large tract of land, can, after entering into possession and taking a conveyance, claim compensation for misrepresentation as to the mileage of fencing on the land. The contract was silent as to the fencing, but it is contended that on this subject the respondents agent made a material misrepresentation as to the mileage which induced the appellant to enter into the contract. Their Lordships will proceed on the assumption that this was so. As, shortly after the payment of the deposit, the purchaser entered into possession and has taken profits, recission is now impossible. It is equally true that, as there is no charge made of fraudulent misrepresentation, no claim can be made for damages for deceit. The only possible remedy open to the appellant as purchaser is to claim compensation against the vendor for the deficiency in the mileage of fencing by invoking the well-known jurisdiction of a Court of Equity in cases of specific performance to order compensation for discrepancy between what was agreed to be conveyed and what can be conveyed.

But their Lordships are in agreement with the major