The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-03-08

ceived1 by Roberts from the company on the resale
This tepepas on the construction 20 be given TO the
ment had heen executed by Robert, at the time he pur
chased OF Helm al, and of all about II.
.nd, ii Il really axsd cash value value equivalent
in 10 Sl0 600 on the vessel no knew and line
that he giving $22 600 for what worth $780, 900
and any presumption could be enter sioed that hs did
not disclose tsis to Hei mnn, then gross docev
ing bim Nov. It appears from The agreement nat thu
Of $40 coo the price agreed upon only in
OF the los 81 The Columbus before her delivery 70 the
Pacific Mail Steamship Company. A value vas in
hfe manner tet On all the Other steamers, a.
also en- Tho steamers OF the Pacific Mail : esmshio
to that ent from the Of stack In which
the payment was TO BE- Eade. The whole price Of the
,o0T o h1.a At to ;. pad for
Of The United States Msil Steamship Company, At
part the United States Mail steamship Company their
the Atlantic $500 0O0 10 be paid
Of the latter company at par and the payments we're %
ST. smship Con- psny paying the SAIL 900 OF its stock
which the Pacific Company owed 70 Rooers and Law, d.
recy to those parties, and the balance TO the Pacific
Company. No money was to be PAID except for the
stock Of coal and supplies hand Aspinwa the
valuations were not cash Variations but rea i've merely
and in the way Of barter When in addition TO this We
take into ccnst all the terms spulaons OF
that contract OF them Of purely contingent char
acer and the risk of the loss the vessel which Roberts
assumed besides whatever liabilities she might be under
it would certainly be difficult to that he had realise
ss Of cash. equivalent for what he had OF
SSAs'oco
verdict which should find that he had realized that
would not be warranted by the evidence phis l.t
ter onste.ation, it necessary dwell uptn it,
would form very serious obecon to the sustaining of
this action. The plaintiff is entitled TO damage
than he has actually sustained How can jury Posso
estimate this in complicated contingent like the
pre,ents Would i. be proper rule Of damage to take
the valuation agreed upon in case Of the loss OF the
sitrsry relative one o' What were The liabilities
in respect to the vessel, which the defendant had
assumed and which may have deprecated her value
IN hand nm ~ hat fha afouda mt has
realized $50, GOO with the certainty with which it
be said that he gave 500 600. not, the jury
til the injury sustained by the psintf? Nay
IL be said with certainty that the Plaintiff has sustained
entirely satisfied the other grounds that the plaintiff
has not made out to go the jury Toe evidence,
as now stancs does not in my Judgment constitute
sufficient primd acte to to the jury the esssn
tal points ct mtrepreseDta 100 concealmens the
part of the Misunderstanding to the plaintiff the fan
benefit Of that OF obligation in respect ds
closure ensurg from the fduciary relation which would
be recognized in Court OF equity if this
not does it show the plaintiff to have been in that
means of nvestigation his own part, which would
make the i'm oson praetised upon him, If had been
practit ed wholly the fault Of the other does it show
that the plaintiff in fact deceived that he closed
his bargain in actual ignorance OF all that defendant him
self knew Of the state Of the accounts and OF the
existence Of the contract with the steamship
pany the transfer the ship. say thu evidep
prind focie establish the atrma I've CT these
propositions and it only by the aid of presumptor7
which be entertained in action at law thai
such Affirmative can be said to have been made
out On the contrary the evidence does airmatiyely
establish that the defendant Of great deal
Of information respect to the accounts and that he
in actual controversy and dispute with the de
PENDANT their condition And in respect to
the sale If the vessels to the steamship company,
it does eeablh afirmatvey that he had some nforma
ion thaAs put directly upon inquiry; that he
invited to full and searching Dves,iga on and that he
had an opportunity ct least ten days personal nqu
before he closed his sale to defendant during which
period there particle of evidence to show that he
did not fully possess himself OF all that to be
in regard to both subjects The complaint must be dis
missed
Counsel for defendant Nessrs Vanderpool Cutting and
oConor for plaintiff Messrs. Bovine, Noyes and Lord.