Hunt v. Wall

I think the facts found in this case bring it within the principle established in Paine v. Upton (87 N. Y. 327) and Mills v. Kampfe (202 id. 46). The mere fact that no price per acre was discussed by the parties or finally agreed upon is not, in my opinion, controlling. Both parties believed that the farm contained fifty-two acres and the deficiency of eleven and nine-tenths acres is quite substantial. In the language used in Hill v. Buckley (17 Ves. 394), quoted with approval in Paine v. Upton (supra, 332), “ though the land is neither bought nor sold professedly by the acre, the presumption…