Case ID: stew_1/html/0047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      JUDGE SAFFOLD", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ellis v. Grooms.
    Vendor of no*fc which had been satisfied Fable to vendee, though there be no special contract, or fraud on his part
    This was an appeal from the judgement of a justice of the peace to the Circuit Court of Monroe county. The action was brought to recover the amount of a note “ traded,” by defendant to plaintiff, but ->ot endorsed bv defendant, nor did his name appear in. or on it. On the trial the judge charged the jurv, that if the note was paid, before it was traded bv defendant to plaintiff for a valuable consideration, although th • defendant did not know it, he would be liable, with mr any special contract, or fraud on his part, to which the defendant excepted.
    Ellis assigned here as errors.
    First and second, The matters of the bill of exceptions.
    Third and fourth, It does not appear by the record, that any inferior tribunal had rendered judgement in the cause, that any appeal was properly granted, or if granted, when returned or how the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the matter in controversy.
    Pa’isons, fir plaintiff in error,
    cited 1 Esp. 38 — Oh. on 'Lbs 117,119, 120; Bay’s Hep. 392 ¿ Addison’s R. 55 ; 1 D".b is 4)-9,252.
    Bagjby, for defendant in error
   JUDGE SAFFOLD

delivered the opinion of the Court.

As to the first and second assignments the sale of the note fQr a va|uable consideration, implies an undertaking on the part of the vendor, that his title is good, and that the person whose liability is expressed in the note, will be responsible for the amount. The contract implies a warranty of title, but if it was paid when transferred, die vendor was not entitled, there was a breach of this implied warranty, and the vendee was entitled to recover of the vendor, to the amount of the consideration, which he had paid to him. The measure of damages, has not however been made a question for the consideration of this Court.

The third and fourth assignments are on the alleged irregularity of the appeal. As to these, it is sufficient to sav that they are not available, especially after issue joined in the Circuit Court on the merits. Judgement af-. finned.

The Chief Justice not sitting.