Cited by

It has long been settled in this state that a purchaser can rely on representations relating to a prospective purchase, even though by making an actual inspection of the property, as in Bonness v. Felsing, 97 Minn. 227 , , 114 A. S. R, 707, or by consulting the official survey records, as in Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 , the true condition of the premises would have been disclosed.

There is no inconsistency in pleading in abatement and pleading to the merits at the same time, although orderly practice may call *35 for the disposition of a plea in abatement before there is a trial on the merits, for it is essentially a dilatory plea (Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 ), which should be presented and disposed of at the first opportunity, and by proceeding to trial on the merits without calling the court’s attention to the plea it may be that it is waived.

The following cases, although not involving the specific question presented in this case, illustrate and apply the principle: Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 ; Hedderly v. Downs, 31 Minn. 183 , ; Peck v. McLean, 36 Minn. 228 , , 1 Am.

Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 ; Olson v. Orton, 28 Minn. 36 , , and numerous citations in 2 Notes on Minnesota Reports, 168.

Riggs v. Thorpe, 67 Minn. 217 , ; Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 ; Stearns v. Kennedy, 94 Minn. 439 , .

Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 ; Griffin v. Farrier, 32 Minn. 474 , ; Mountain v. Day, 91 Minn. 249 , ; Stearns v. Kennedy, 94 Minn. 439 , .

See also Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 , where it was held that where the seller, in offering certain city lots for sale, made representations to the purchaser as to their size and location, the latter is not required to examine the records for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the representations, but may rely thereon.

Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 '.

Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 ; Olson v. Orton, 28 Minn. 36 , ; Maxfield v. Schwartz, 45 Minn. 150 , ; Redding v. Wright, 49 Minn. 322 , .

Kelly v. Rogers, 21 Minn. 146 ; Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 ; Stevens v. Ludlum, 46 Minn. 160 , ; Wetmore v. Royal, 55 Minn. 162 , .

14 ;) Burr v. Willson, 22 Minn. 206 ; Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 ; Olson v. Orton, 28 Minn. 36 , ( 8 N. W. Rep.

Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 ; Perkins v. Partridge, 30 N. J. Eq.

The case, as to this point, comes within the decision in Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 493 , in which it was held that a party offering city lots for sale, and making representations to the purchaser as to their size and location, could not impute negligence or indiscretion to the purchaser, if, relying on such representations, he did not deem it necessary to examine the plat in the office of the register o