The Portland daily press., 1883-06-29
supreme judicial Court.

LQl1 Term.
The Press yesterday announced the decision in the
case of G. G. Chapman c. r. Milliken to recover
the value OF notes of the Dennson Paper Manutac-
turing Company, sold by Ailiken to Chapman. The
following is the full rescript just received:
Where one sells negotiable business paper in good
faith. without endorsing it. making no misrepresen-
tations respecting it, and at rate of discount in
dicating that the purchaser has compensation for
his risk there is no implied warranty on the part OF
the seller as to the past present future soveucy
of the makers enGorsers In cases of sale or bar
ter of commercial paper as of other personal prop
erty the rule cdreGt eRptor applies Such cases are
not governed by the same rule as cases where the
paper is transferred simply in payment of debt
pre-existing then contracted which the credit
Is entitled to receive in money A purchaser is not
entitled to rescind on the ground of mutual mistake
II it turns out that unknown to the parties to the
trade the makers of the paper are lnsovent at the
time of the sale. The mutual mistake in that case
is one not of the essence but of the quality of the
subject of the sale. The relating the
fer Of bank notes or bans ers demand usec as
currency have no application to the purchase
and sale of business paper and the transactions be-
tween brokers dealing in it and their customers.
Such notes are no longer currency, when those whs
have issued them solvent ana 1.-THE mistake of
act Is OF that which is the SUBJECT OF tne contract
and not merely of quality and value. The request
ed instructions asserting right of rescnsion on the
ground of mutual mistake of fact were napplicable
to this case and were rightly refused. The request
for instruction upon the point of fraudulent con-
cealment by the plaintiff of material fact is fatally
defective because it does not require the jury to lind
PENDANT might be deceived, purposed concealment
with fraudulent intent which would be something
more than mefe casual omission. II the seller of
commercial paper knows that the maker has failed
Is about to fail, and purposely conceals that
knowledge from his vendee, who has not the same
means Of knowledge it would be fraud but the
communication of every item of information which
In the light of subsequent events may be seen to
have bearing upon the question of soyeney is not
in ordinary cases of sale essential prerequisite
70 a valid and binding contract. Each party I'M
derstands that there is risk uncertainty which
he who sells without his own endorsement or war
ranty designs to transfer to the purchaser and the
price is graduated thereby in connection with other
circumstances affecting it. The doctrines which
govern where the relations of the parties TO
each other import extraordinary trust and conf
dence do not apply TO ordinary sales, like the
under consideration.
The instructions given this point were sufi-
GENTLY favorable to the defendant.
The jury have absolyed the plaintiff from the i'm
putation of fraudulent representations conceal
ments.
There is nothing in the case which would justify
US in disturbing the verdict.
Motion and exceptions overruled.