“Tbe constituent elements of tbe offense of false pretense are: (1) Tbat tbe representation was made as alleged; (2) tbat property or something of value was obtained by reason of tbe representation; (3) tbat tbe representation was false; (4) tbat it was made with intent to defraud; (5) tbat it actually did deceive and defraud tbe person to whom it was made.” S. v. Johnson, 195 N. C., 506; S. v. Roberts, 189 N. C., 93, 126 S. E., 161; S. v. Carlson, 171 N. C., 818, 89 S. E., 30.
The record in this case contains many assignments of error. Tbe defendant duly made a motion of nonsuit, contending tbat tbe evidence, viewed in its most favorable light, clearly disclosed tbat tbe Southern Iron & Equipment Company, in purchasing said rails from tbe defendant, was not deceived or misled by tbe representations made by him for tbe plain reason tbat all of tbe evidence tended to show tbat tbe purchaser of said property, through competent and expert agents, made a thorough and independent investigation of tbe quantity and quality of tbe property included in tbe sale. Tbe principle of law involved in this aspect of the case is clearly stated as follows in Patton v. Fibre Co., 194 N. C., 765, 140 S. E.,, 734: “It is well settled tbat one cannot secure redress for fraud where be acted in reliance upon bis own knowledge or judgment based upon independent investigation. This rule is said to be especially applicable where tbe representee’s investigation was undertaken at tbe suggestion of tbe representor.”
Tbe evidence further discloses tbat tbe contracting parties abandoned tbe mileage .basis and adopted a tonnage basis upon which to consummate tbe transaction. Indeed, after tbe tonnage basis was adopted, tbe agent of tbe purchaser, as a result of bis investigation, reduced tbe estimate of 2,000 tons made by tbe defendant to 1,750 tons.
*457Tbe evidence is plain and unmistakable. Tbe purchaser knew before tbe contract was closed tbat tbe defendant was not paying $32,000 for said property, and tbe purchaser further knew, or bad sound reason to believe, tbat tbe estimate made by tbe defendant was too high, and for this reason insisted tbat tbe amount of rail be reduced.
It is useless to set out an array of authorities or to pyramid quotations therefrom. Tbe purchaser made tbe contract with bis eyes wide open, and after a complete and thorough independent investigation, and cannot now invoke tbe aid of tbe criminal law to repair an error of judgment in making a bad bargain.
Tbe motion for nonsuit should have been allowed, and it is so ordered.
Eeversed.