Alexandria gazette & advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1822-1824, 1822-11-30

On the part OF the detendants, il was
contended that they were commission mer-
chants and acted as agents merely-that
the plaintiffs knew, al the time OF the safe,
who their principals were, and that the
action should have been brought against
the principals instead OF the agents. The
defendants tailed however in their attempt
TO prove that they made disclosure OF
their principals.
Ii vas further commended that the de-
PENDANTS did not warrant the indigo to be
Bengal, aAd that the bill of parcels and
advertisements were not evidence OF such
a warranty but il the defendants did
warrant the indigo TO be Bengal, they
SAID the warranty had been complied with
for the indigo was Bengal in fact.
In relation to the advertisement, the de-
PENDANTS said it did not amount to war
ranty, but was intended like other adver-
tisementS ia the newspapers, merely to
attract customers TO come and look at the
article. This was matter well under
stood by every body.
Tue defendants denied that this was
sale by sample, and endeavored to prove
a usage IN Boston, that the sale OF indigo
by musters, or by specimens taken out OF
the cases, sale by sample in strict ie-
gal sense is not intended, but. that speCf
mems are shown to enable the purchaser to
torn sjudgment OF the article, with an un-
derstanding thar be is either 10 satisfy MIN
self that the bulk of the indigo corresponds
with the samples, ortake the risk 1t he ne
elects 10 make the investigation. The
defendants failed to make out such u
sage But il the sale was by sample, tie
defendants SAID the indigo was subtan'
TALLY of the same quality as the specimens
exhibited to the plaintiffs,
Some witnesses were examined On the
part OF The defendants, as TO a usage IN
Boston to make 90 allowance tor detect
in the quality OF indigo, when the detect
is not discovered until alter the indigo has
been exported; but the testimony did rot
support any such usage.
Mr. Justice jackson, 10 summing up Inc
cause, observed that no fraud on The part
oil the defendants was suggested. but that
the action went on the ground OF war
ranty. The first question was, whether
the defendants were liable to this action,
having been only agents in the sale. 1t
was not moved that they disclosed their
principals at be time of making the con-
tract. Ii would have been very easy tor
them If they wished TO avoid responsible
ty, to have said to the plaintiff, we offer
you this indigo as the property OF such
person, our principal But it was well
settled that II an agent does not disclose
his principal, the party with whom he.
contracts has a right to consider him as
the principal There might be cases OF
hardship under the law as SO determined,
and there might be if it were settled 9TH
eGwlse. But this was immeterial. II was
sufh ient, in the present, ms ance, that
the Law allowed the ct on to be brought
against the agents ltwss in their power TO
have protected themselves against any
hardship OF this kind by disclosing their
principal The learned Judge went on sto
remark that warraNt;es were OF two Kinds.
express or implied Here tie plaintiffs con-
tended for both kinds; an express warranty
that the indigo Beng4i, and an iupbed
warranty III respect to the Quality When
the bill of parcels cails,lt Bengal midi
go, it is a warranty that the indigo is
q
ence between an opinion as to the quail
ity oil an article. aud statement OF fact
as to the kind. L was common tor ven.
der to say of an article, jlhat il is the
best in Boston, or that 1t IS very supe-
ror, &c. This as only the expression
of an opinion. The words vsry superior
might however, 10 respect TO some arl-
cles, mean a particular kind, like the
words beef No / &c. If there was any
thing OF this sort applicable to indigo,
the testimony oil the witnesses however
seemed to prove the contrary il would be
Tor the jury TO say, in case the defendants
at the time of the sale, had used the very
NO ds oil he advertisement, whether they
used them with any such specific meaning
which would have amounted TO warraR-
ty, or only as an expression OF an opinion.
Another objection to the advertisement,
was, that there was no evidence of its ba
wing been alluded 10, when The contract
was made. 1t was for The jury 10 say
whether there was such an allusion, and
whether the defendants in making the bar
gain, called the indigo very superior.
!, Another ground taken by the plaintiffs
was, that HE indigo was not only warrant
cd to be Bengal, but,likewise TO be equal
to sample In sale by sample, the ar
ticie ought to correspond substantially
with the sample. The seller means to
say, the bulk OF the article is fairly repre-
sented by the specimen exhibited This
may not mean, .iD the article OF indigo,
that every cake shall be exactly alike. IT
may have such meaning in some things,
which are capable of being made precise
ly similar. The witnesses say that IN a