belts, and generally aided in the care and operation of the threshing machine. All the work performed by plaintiff, however, was directly connected with the harvesting and threshing of the flax. The flax could neither be harvested nor threshed except by the use of machinery, and certainly the mere fact that part of plaintiff's work consisted in aiding in the operation of machinery owned and operated by the employer did not deprive plaintiff of the character of a farm laborer. The flax indeed had little or no value until it was threshed. Plaintiff's services were directly connected with the final work in the production of the flax and its preparation for the market. The work plaintiff performed was directly in connection with the harvesting and threshing of the flax, and the legislative intent in the enactment of the statute creating farm laborers' liens was to secure to farm laborers who performed services directly in connection with the production of a crop a lien for their services on the crop produced by their labor. The lien was doubtless intended for the benefit of any person who as a farm laborer performed any work directly connected with the production of a crop in any of its stages, such as the planting, cultivating, harvesting, or threshing thereof. Lowe v. Abrahamson, supra; Breault v. Archambault, 64 Minn. 420, 58 Am. St. Rep. 545, 67 N. W. 348; Saloy v. Dragon, 37 La. Ann. 71. And it seems quite clear to us that the labor performed by the plaintiff in this case was in every particular directly connected with the production of the crop in question, and that therefore plaintiff is entitled to claim a farm laborer's lien thereon for the amount due him for his labor.

The testimony offered amply sustains plaintiff's right to recover the amount for which judgment was ordered. The trial court's determination of the questions involved in this action was correct, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

JOHN A. HODSON v. WELLS & DICKEY COMPANY.

(154 N. W. 193.)

Agency-sales solicitor for lands-authority representations as to land -contract of employment - provisions control.

Defendants appointed one Weese, a sales solicitor, to obtain purchaser for real estate in North Dakota under contract set forth in the opinion, and which contract contained the following clause: "No advertisement or other representations on your part that you are for any purposes an agent of said company will be permitted, the terms 'sales solicitor' being invariably used, and any violation of this provision shall of itself revoke this appointment and terminate your authority thereunder."

Plaintiff alleges that Weese induced him to purchase land by false representations as to its quality and value. Held, for reasons stated in the opinion, that the action will not lie, as it was not within the scope of the authority of Weese to make any representations as to the quality or value of the land.

Opinion filed July 2, 1915.

Appeal from the District Court, Stutsman County; Coffey, J.
Reversed.

Watson & Young and E. T. Conmy, for appellant.

In the sale of lands, mere "words of praise" or "dealers' talk," even though relied upon by the purchaser, do not furnish ground for action for damages for fraud and deceit. It is the duty of the purchaser to investigate for himself. Failing in this, he takes his own chances. Kerr, Fr. & Mistake, p. 84; Van Horn v. Keenan, 28 Ill. 448; Miller v. Craig, 36 Ill. 111; Noetling v. Wright, 72 Ill. 391.

"A person has the right to exalt the value of his own property to the highest point his antagonist's credulity may bear," such is not actionable misrepresentation. Miller v. Craig, 36 Ill. 111; Mayo v. Wahlgreen, 9 Colo. App. 506, 50 Pac. 43; Buxton v. Jones, 120 Mich. 522, 79 N. W. 980; Stevens v. Alabama State Land Co. 121 Ala. 450, 25 So. 995; Moore v. Turbeville, 2 Bibb, 602, 5 Am. Dec. 642; 20 Cyc. 51-54; Bossingham v. Syck, 118 Iowa, 192, 91 N. W. 1047; Else v. Freeman, 72 Kan. 666, 83 Pac. 409; Wightman v. Tucker, 50 Ill. App. 75.

False representations by the vendor of land as to profits he has

realized, quantity of timber on it, richness of the soil, value of the land, are mere matters of opinion, and are not actionable. Crown v. Carriger, 66 Ala. 590; 48 Century Dig. § 40; Ott v. Pace, 43 Mont. 82, 115 Pac. 37; Saunders v. Hatterman, 24 N. C. (2 Ired. L.) 32, 37 Am. Dec. 404; Brown v. Bledsoe, 1 Idaho, 746; Else v. Freeman, 72 Kan. 666, 83 Pac. 409; Tretheway v. Hulett, 52 Minn. 448, 54 N. W. 486; Parker v. Moulton, 114 Mass. 99, 19 Am. Rep. 315; Davis v. Reynolds, 107 Me. 61, 77 Atl. 409; Armstrong v. White, Ind. App., 34 N. E. 847; Lake v. Security Loan Asso. 72 Ala. 207; Williams v. McFadden, 23 Fla. 143, 11 Am. St. Rep. 345, 1 So. 618; Noetling v. Wright, 72 Ill. 390; Cagney v. Cuson, 77 Ind. 494; Hartman v. Flaherty, 80 Ind. 472; Shade v. Creviston, 93 Ind. 591; Picard v. McCormick, 11 Mich. 68; Doran v. Eaton, 40 Minn. 35, 41 N. W. 244; Union Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 76 Mo. 439.

No legal fraud can be predicted on "dealer's talk" or "words of praise." Heald v. Yumisko, 7 N. D. 428, 75 N. W. 806; Beare v. Wright, 14 N. D. 26, 69 L.R.A. 409, 103 N. W. 632, 8 Ann. Cas. 1057; Heyrock v. Surerus, 9 N. D. 28, 81 N. W. 36; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N. D. 516, 101 N. W. 905.

Where a vendee has opportunity to see and inspect a piece of land before buying, he cannot later on be heard to say that he has been deceived as to its character and value. Harvey v. Smith, 17 Ind. 272; 20 Cyc. 32; Moore v. Turbeville, 2 Bibb, 602, 5 Am. Dec. 642; Morrill v. Madden, 35 Minn. 493, 29 N. W. 193, 37 Minn. 282, 34 N. W. 25; Anderson v. McPike, 86 Mo. 293; Fisher v. Dillon, 62 Ill. 379; Buxton v. Jones, 120 Mich. 522, 79 N. W. 980; Realty Invest. Co. v. Shafer, 91 Neb. 798, 137 N. W. 873; Long v. Warren, 68 N. Y. 426; Brown v. Smith, 109 Fed. 26; Scott v. Walton, 32 Or. 460, 52 Pac. 180; Lee v. McClelland, 120 Cal. 147, 52 Pac. 300; Peak v. Gore, 94 Ky. 533, 23 S. W. 356; Woodson v. Winchester, 16 Cal. App. 472, 117 Pac. 565; McKibbin v. Day, 71 Neb. 280, 98 N. W. 845; Long v. Kendall, 17 Okla. 70, 87 Pac. 670; Francois v. Cady Land Co. 149 Wis. 115, 135 N. W. 484; Saunders v. Hatterman, 24 N. C. (2 Ired. L.) 32, 37 Am. Dec. 404.

Opportunity to inspect precludes relief from fraudulent representations. Shepard v. Goben, 142 Ind. 318, 39 N. E. 506; Long v. Warren, 68 N. Y. 426; Wren v. Moncure, 95 Va. 369, 28 S. E. 588.

The rule of caveat emptor applies to the sale of real property. Collier v. Harkness, 26 Ga. 362, 71 Am. Dec. 216; Tretheway v. Hulett, 52 Minn. 448, 54 N. W. 486; Walsh v. Schmidt, 206 Mass. 405, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 798, 92 N. E. 496, 1 N. C. C. A. 906; Armstrong v. White, Ind. App. -, 34 N. E. 847.

One cannot, in any event, be heard to say that he relied on the false statements of his vendor, when he himself knew as much about the land as the vendor. 20 Cyc. 49, 50; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N. D. 516, 101 N. W. 905; Collins v. Jackson, 54 Mich. 186, 19 N. W. 947; Heyrock v. Surerus, 9 N. D. 28, 81 N. W. 36; McKibbin v. Day, 71 Neb. 280, 98 N. W. 845; Peak v. Gore, 94 Ky. 533, 23 S. W. 356; Long v. Kendall, 17 Okla. 70, 87 Pac. 670; Francois v. Cady Land Co. 149 Wis. 115, 135 N. W. 484; Saunders v. Hatterman, 24 N. C. (2 Ired. L.) 32, 37 Am. Dec. 404.

The statements relied upon here to show fraud were made without the scope of the agent's authority, and are not binding upon the defendant. One who purchases real estate from a nonresident owner, through a real estate broker, is bound to ascertain not only the terms of his authority, but also the correspondence by which such authority was obtained. Merritt v. Wassenich, 49 Fed. 785; Roberts v. Rumley, 58 Iowa, 301, 12 N. W. 323; Whart. Agency, § 163; Rice v. Peninsular Club, 52 Mich. 87, 17 N. W. 708; Chaffe v. Stubbs, 37 La. Ann. 656; Rust v. Eaton, 24 Fed. 830; Reitz v. Martin, 12 Ind. 306, 74 Am. Dec. 215; Hurley v. Watson, 68 Mich. 531, 36 N. W. 726; Snow v. Warner, 10 Met. 132, 43 Am. Dec. 417; Story, Agency, §§ 126, 133, and note; Dickinson County v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co. 41 Iowa, 286; Beringer v. Meanor, 85 Pa. 223; Weise's Appeal, 72 Pa. 351; Dozier v. Freeman, 47 Miss. 647; Davidson v. Porter, 57 Ill. 300; Mechem, Agency, § 137; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N. D. 165, 54 N. W. 924; Reese v. Medlock, 27 Tex. 120, 84 Am. Dec. 611; Henry v. Lane, 62 C. C. A. 625, 128 Fed. 250; State, Decker, Prosecutor, v. Fredericks, 47 N. J. L. 469, 1 Atl. 470; Titus v. Cairo & F. R. Co. 46 N. J. L. 393; Dyer v. Duffy, 39 W. Va. 148, 24 L.R.A. 339, 19 S. E. 540; Advance Thresher Co. v. Roger, 123 La. 1067, 49 So. 709; Americus Oil Co. v. Gurr, 114 Ga. 624, 40 S. E. 780; Seibold v. Davis, 67 Iowa, 560, 25 N. W. 778; Monson v. Kill, 144 Ill. 248, 33 N. E. 43; Brown v. Grady, 16 Wyo. 151, 92 Pac. 622; Bowles v. Rice,

107 Va. 51, 57 S. E. 575; Batty v. Carswell, 2 Johns. 48; Schaeffer v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. 38 Mont. 459, 100 Pac. 225; Devinney v. Reynolds, 1 Watts & S. 328; National Union F. Ins. Co. v. John Spry Lumber Co. 235 Ill. 98, 85 N. E. 256; Williams v. Kerrick, 105 Minn. 254, 116 N. W. 1026; Tondro v. Cushman, 5 Wis. 279; Kelly v. Troy F. Ins. Co. 3 Wis. 254; Samson v. Beale, 27 Wash. 557, 68 Pac. 180; 31 Cyc. 1363, 1364; Mayo v. Wahlgreen, 9 Colo. App. 506, 50 Pac. 40; Kennedy v. McKay, 43 N. J. L. 288, 39 Am. Rep. 581; National Iron Armor Co. v. Bruner, 19 N. J. Eq. 335; Lansing v. Coleman, 58 Barb. 619; Daniels v. Bruce, Ind. App. -, 93 N. E. 675; Cooley v. Perrine, 41 N. J. L. 322, 32 Am. Rep. 210; Dodd v. Farlow, 11 Allen, 426, 87 Am. Dec. 726.

"An authority to sell and convey real property includes the authority to give the usual covenants of warranty." These do not include the power to make representations as to the character or value or quality of the property. Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 5402, 5777, Comp. Laws 1913, SS 5958, 6345.

A broker's authority is limited simply to the procuring of a purchaser for the land. Larson v. Newman, 19 N. D. 153, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 849, 121 N. W. 204; Ballou v. Bergvendsen, 9 N. D. 289, 83 N. W. 10; Brandrup v. Britten, 11 N. D. 376, 92 N. W. 453; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N. D. 165, 54 N., W. 924.

The principal alone, if anybody, is liable for the acts and statements of a subagent. Kuhnert v. Angell, 10 N. D. 59, 88 Am. St. Rep. 675, 84 N. W. 579; Mechem, Agency, §§ 193, 197; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 979, 981; Barnard v. Coffin, 141 Mass. 37, 55 Am. Rep. 443, 6 N. E. 364; Renwick v. Bancroft, 56 Iowa, 527, 9 N. W. 367; Nelson v. Title Trust Co. 52 Wash. 258, 100 Pac. 730; Eastland v. Maney, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 147, 81 S. W. 574; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 985; Fritz v. Chicago Grain & Elevator Co. 136 Iowa, 699, 114 N. W. 193; Williams v. Moore, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 402, 58 S. W. 953; MeKinnon v.Vollmar, 75 Wis. 82, 6 L.R.A. 121, 17 Am. St. Rep. 178, 43 N. W. 800; Clark & S. Agency, § 345, (d) p. 377; Bound v. Simkins, Tex. Civ. App. -, 151 S. W. 573.

It is competent for an agent to sell lands, to employ a subagent to show the lands to prospective buyers. McKinnon v. Vollmar, 75 Wis. 82, 6 L.R.A. 121, 17 Am. St. Rep. 178, 43 N. W. 800; National Bank