Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Monte_Allegre_Tenant
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:24:27+00:00

Document:
The appellant, Thomas Tenant, filed his petition on the 14th of November, 1821, in the Circuit Court for the Maryland District, setting forth that at a public sale of part of the cargo of the ship Monte Allegre, under an interlocutory order of the District Court, in the case of Joaquim Jose Vasques, Consul-General of Portugal, against the ship Monte Allegre, and her cargo, he became the purchaser of six hundred and fifty-three seroons of Brazil tobacco, part of said cargo, for which he paid to the Marshal of the District, under whose superintendence the sale was conducted, 15,495 dollars and 46 cents. That the tobacco was sold by samples, which were sound and merchantable, and that, believing the bulk of the tobacco corresponded, in this respect, with the samples, he became the purchaser. That, shortly afterwards, he exported the whole of the tobacco so purchased to Gibraltar; and, after its arrival there, it was found, upon examination, to be wholly unsound and unmerchantable, the greater part being entirely rotten, and the remainder unsaleable but at very reduced prices, and was, in fact, sold for 4,818 dollars and 52 cents.
The appellant, in his petition, further alleges, that the tobacco received no damage in its transportation to Gibraltar, but was, at the time it was sold by the Marshal, wholly unsound, rotten, and unmerchantable: that the cause in which the order was passed, by virtue of which the tobacco was sold, was still pending in this Court; and that the proceeds of said sale remained in the Circuit Court, under its authority and control; and, thereupon, prayed for such relief, as, upon proof of the allegations, he might be considered by the Court entitled to.
1. Because the Court had no jurisdiction or power whatever to sustain the petition, inasmuch as it was calling on the Court to award damages on a claim in the nature of an action for a deceit, or on a warranty, as an incident to a cause, in its nature wholly of admiralty and maritime cognizance, the claim being entirely of common law jurisdiction, and could not be made an incident to that which appertains exclusively to the Admiralty. And, secondly, the claim was resisted upon the merits. Proofs were taken on both sides, in the Court below, and a decree, pro forma, was entered by consent, dismissing the petition with costs; on which the cause was brought by appeal to this Court. March 3d.
4. The Marshal, being the agent of the Court, was authorized to sell by sample, that being, according to the proof, the usual and customary mode of sale; and this even if he be considered as a special agent.  The Marshal, however, being the agent of the Court, in all sales under its decrees, is to be considered strictly as a general agent,  and is, therefore, authorized to do all acts within the scope of his employment.
5. The proceeds now remaining in the registry,though not the specific proceeds of the tobacco, are, notwithstanding, liable to this claim. The proceeds of the tobacco were disbursed in payment of duties and expenses, which were a joint charge of ship and cargo. The fund now in Court is a common fund, on which the owners of the tobacco have a claim for their distributive charge.
Mr. D. Hoffman, for the respondents, contended, that the Marshal possessed no power to warrant the quality of the article sold, he being a special agent, with limited powers; and that if he had exceeded the scope of his authority, he could not thereby implicate the proceeds of the property, being the agent of the Court, and not of the owners. That the limited authority of the Marshal, in the case of sales by order of the Court, is universally known and acknowledged; that all persons, therefore, are presumed to purchase on their own means of judging; and public officers are never presumed to possess the same extent of knowledge in regard to the quality of property sold by them, as the owners thereof would be presumed to possess.
Admitting, then, argumenti gratia, that there has, in fact, been gross fraud, or a warranty express or implied, by the Marshal, or by his agent, the auctioneer, or by both, such fraud, or warranty, would neither implicate the property, nor involve the owners in any responsibility. It is not competent for a Court, nor for the Marshal, as agent of that Court, nor for the auctioneer, as agent of the Marshal, in any case, to charge the property or owners by any fraud or warranty.
The cases on this point, which have been cited by the appellant's counsel, may be distinguished.
Having nearly exhausted the common law sources of information, on this question, I shall be pardoned for seeking further light in the Roman code, that pure and copious fountain of written reason. It is well known how strict the AEdilitian law was in regard to the obligations of vendors. Not only a sound price warranted a sound commodity, but the seller was bound to declare all the faults known to him, nay, was responsible even for such as were altogether unknown to him. Yet all the commentators on this edict admit, that neither the action quanti minoris, redhibitoria, nor that ex empto, would lie in the case of fiscal and judicial sales. It appears that where an extravagant price was given for a commodity, the Roman law allowed a diminution of the price, to be enforced by the action quanti minoris, though the purchaser suggested neither fraud nor warranty. But this applied only to private sales, not those under public authority. So, if the commodity were unsound, or unfit for its ordinary purpose, that law compelled the vendor, by the actia redhibitoria, to take back the property, or make allowance for its defects; but the policy of the law did not suffer judicial or fiscal sales to be impugned by the redhibitory action. Again, if the title proved defective, in lands or goods, the purchaser resorted to the action ex empto; but this, too, applied only to private sales.
The Marshal is necessarily a special agent only, and his, like all other defined authorities, must be strictly pursued. He need not be directed not to warrant: this is implied ex natura officio.  He cannot be presumed to warrant, because between him and the owners there can be no privity. An owner has the requisite knowledge of the nature and qualities of his merchandise; he, and his agent, the auctioneer, who have the fullest means of judging, may consequently sometimes impliedly warrant. But an officer of Court cannot be presumed to warrant any thing, since he sells the products of every region of the globe, often without invoices, letters, description, or muniments of title, and often without seeing, or the possibility of seeing, the contents of numerous packages, whose opening might lead to expense or prejudice. And even with respect to agents and servants, the general doctrine is, that they are not competent to implicate their constituents, either by their warranty or their fraud; though there are many cases where the principal has been bound, especially in the sale of horses, which rests on special grounds. It is, however, laid down by Rolle, that 'a warranty on a sale must be made by him who sells; and, therefore, if a servant, on a sale of goods of his master, warrant them, it will be a void warranty, for it is the sale of the master.'  So here, if the Marshal have warranted the property, it is a void warranty as to the source whence he derived his power to sell.
As to the question of express warranty, or fraud, it may be laid down as a settled principle, that purchasers are bound to apply their attention to those particulars, which may be supposed within the reach of their observation and judgment; and that if they are wanting in that attention where it would have protected them, they must endure the loss, unless in the case of an express warranty, or of gross fraud.
This is a case in which the purchaser's vigilance should have been particularly awakened. He well knew, that the tobacco was sold under an interlocutory decree, which must have been either under a perishable monition, the consent of proctors, or the arbitrary mandate of the Court. The decree itself, however, seemed to imply the perishable state of the property; and besides, interlocutory decrees for the sale of property are seldom allowed, unless from some such necessity. This alone was sufficient to put the party on the inquiry. A Court, also, and its officers, (unlike owners,) cannot be presumed acquainted with the quality and condition of the property offered for sale; and the nature of the property itself (as we shall presently see) excluded the possibility of the Marshal or his agent's possessing any knowledge not equally within the reach of the purchaser's observation. These circumstances bring the case entirely within the position just laid down, and more extensively expressed and well illustrated, in Fonblanque.  It is a rule of law, no less than of moral justice, that if both parties be ignorant of the quality, a loss, if any, must be sustained by the purchaser: Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subserviunt.  If, then, the vendor have knowledge of patent defects discoverable by ordinary attention, the disclosure of them is a duty but of imperfect obligation, and he cannot be charged by the purchaser, unless there has been a concealment ex industria, or a warranty.  Nay, further, a purchaser is not presumed to have been put off his guard, and diverted from his inquiry, by the vendor's commendation of the goods. Even under the AEdilitian edict, the maxim was simplex commendatio non obligat; for though that law aimed at producing the utmost good faith in sales, yet it was also a rule of the civil code, that 'in buying and selling, the law of nations connives at some cunning and overreaching;' in pretio emptionis et venditionis naturalitur licet contrahentibus se circumvenire; and our law has adopted these principles, in regard both to comme, dation and enhancement of price. We are, then, brought to the inquiry, first, whether the soundness of the price paid will entitle the purchaser to a sound article, or to compensation for its defects; secondly, whether there has been a sale by sample in this case, and what is the true meaning of, and obligation flowing from, a sale by sample.
The only remaining ground, then, on which the appellant's claim can rest, is, secondly, that there has been, in fact, a sale by sample, and that this, in law, implies a warranty that the bulk of the commodity shall correspond with the article exhibited. We deny the fact; and contend, that no sale by sample ever did take place; and as to the law relating to sales by sample, we entertain opinions extremely different from those which have been advanced.
We have shown that the common law knows but two sources of obligation on the part of the vendor, in regard to the quality of the article sold, viz. fraud and express warranty; and that no warranty can be inferred from the doctrine that a sound price insures a sound commodity, this principle forming no part of our jurisprudence. The only remaining source of obligation, therefore, is, that this is a sale by sample; but, to establish this, it will be necessary to maintain that the naked presentation of a portion of the bulk of the commodity sold, is, per se, a warranty that the bulk shall agree in quality with the portion exhibited; a doctrine by no means sustainable by any cases which have been, or can be cited, as to sales by sample. We fully admit, that a sale actually by sample, is tantamount to a warranty; but we differ materially from the counsel as to what constitutes a sample, which, we apprehend, is technical, and something very different from the mere exhibition, at the time of sale, of a part of the commodity offered for sale.
A sample is a portion of the bulk of a commodity, exhibited by the owner or his agent, with the intention to induce persons to buy, expressing the owner or agents knowledge of the general character of the whole, and his willingness to warrant to the purchaser that the bulk shall correspond in all material respects with the part exhibited. It is a symbolical express warranty, being conventional, and as much expressive of intention as words. Thus we preserve the harmony of the law, which excludes all implied warranty as to quality. We deny that sale by a portion exhibited, is necessarily sale by sample of quality: the quo animo is always matter of evidence and we conceive the following to be essential circumstances in the creation of that warranty of quality which arises from the sale by sample: (1.) That the vendor be the owner, or have some privity or connexion with him; otherwise the vendee cannot presume him to be clothed with the authority to warrant, or possessed of that knowledge of the quality of the commodity requisite to do so. In such cases the portion exhibited is merely to enable the purchaser to form a reasonable judgment of the generic or specific character of the commodity; and if he be not satisfied of this, or of the fairness of the selection of the sample, he should demand an express warranty, which would personally obligate the person giving it, or he may refuse to purchase. If he do neither, caveat emptor. (2.) There must be a want of power in the purchaser to examine for himself; for, in the absence of such power, the presumption is greatly strengthened, that the portion exhibited is to serve in lieu of examination. (3.) It should appear that the purchaser was in search of quality, that he desired to exercise some judgment, and placed some reliance on the quality of the portion exhibited; since, if the sample had no operation in determining the mind to purchase, no such influence ought to be ascribed to it. (4.) There must be some further manifestation of intention to exhibit the portion as a sample of quality, than the mere fact of its presence: the minds of the seller and purchaser must have concurred on this point, and the part must be shown animo warrantizandi. (5.) What is declared in connexion with the exhibition of this portion, must be something more than mere opinion; for if a sample be given of what the purchaser knows the seller has never seen, it must, from the very nature of things, be matter of opinion only that the commodity will correspond in bulk with the part shown.
The sale in this case was under judicial authority; the purchaser well knew that the Court and its officers possessed little or no knowledge of this tobacco; they were neither the growers, packers, nor owners of the commodity; and, consequently, even supposing the Marshal competent to warrant, there would be no warranty of the quality, unless the purchaser had reason to suppose that the Marshal or auctioneer had nearly the same knowledge as the owner. The case of Gardner v. Gray,  cited on the other side, fortifies this view of the subject, for there the specimen exhibited came direct from the owner, and the plaintiff had a verdict, not only because he had not opportunity to examine for himself, but because the commodity in bulk could not be sold at all under the denomination of waste silk, which the specimen certainly was. To the same effect is the case of Laing v. Fidgeon,  where the goods were manufactured by the defendant, to whom the plaintiff had sent patterns of the commodity he wanted, which, when sent, was found wholly unsaleable. Now, here the purchaser exhibited the sample, and the manufacturer, by shipping the article to him, adopted the sample, and the plaintiff fully relied on having an article fairly corresponding with it. In all the cases relied on by the appellant, it will be found that the plaintiff had no opportunity of judging for himself; whereas here the appellant, and every other purchaser, had full liberty to examine. The authorities are explicit, that the specimen exhibited must have been relied on as indicating the quality, and so are all the forms of pleading in such cases.  In Bradford v. Davis,  a case much relied on by the appellants, the Court expressly instructed the jury, that if they believed it was the intention of the defendant so to represent, by exhibiting the sample, then the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict; clearly showing the Court's opinion, that the mere exhibition of a specimen is not, per se, a sale by sample. To the same effect is the case of Chapman v. March.  But in the case under consideration, every circumstance combines to show that there was no intention to warrant, and these circumstances were perfectly well known to the purchaser.
The specimen exhibited, and what is declared in regard to it, may be evincive of opinion only, in which case all the authorities agree that there is no sale by sample.  Hibbert v. Shee  has been much relied on by the appellants' counsel. It must be recollected, however, to have been conceded in that case, that the sale was by sample, and the only question was, how far the commodity corresponded with the sample. The sugar had been purchased by a sample, which, after long exposure to the sun, had lost its colouring matter; the plaintiff supposed, therefore, that he was getting sugar nearly white, because he had a right to presume that the samples were fresh.
The Attorney-General, for the appellants, in reply, insisted upon the evidence to show that this was, in fact, a sale by sample. The jurisdiction of the Court below, as a Court of Admiralty, was admitted; the objection to it having been waived. How ought this jurisdiction to have been exercised? The libellant's claim was in rem, and in the alternative, for the fair value of the property, if transmuted. He now asks vastly more. If the specific thing had been preserved in the custody of the Court, he would have received nothing but its real effective value. How, then, can he claim more, in consequence of the sale? How can a Court of justice permit such injustice to be done to an incidental suitor, who has purchased under its decree? A sale by sample is a symbolical warranty. A sale by sample is where a portion of the thing is shown, as a specimen of the entire commodity. The language of Mr. Chief Justice Parker, in Bradford v. Manly,  applies: 'Among fair dealers, there could be no question, that the vendor intended to represent that the article sold was like the sample exhibited; and it would be to be lamented, if the law should refuse its aid to the party who had been deceived in a purchase so made.' The sample could not have been exhibited merely to show the generic character. The principle of the legal rule is, the impression which is naturally produced on the mind of the vendee, by the production of the sample. The Marshal and auctioneer, although acting under the authority of the Court, must be considered as the agents of the owners of the goods. If these judicial agents proceed exactly as a merchant would have done, under the same circumstances, the purchaser has a right to draw the same inference as in the case of a private sale. The Court has power to relieve, and will relieve, upon the same principles which govern a Court of equity, while it is in fieri. The rules of the Roman law on this subject have never been incorporated into our municipal code, and we are rather to look to the analogous practice of the Courts of Equity. The circumstance of its being a judicial sale, so far from its disabling the Court, gives it the more authority to redress the party, in case of mistake or misrepresentation, even in a state of facts where relief would not be granted in a private sale. It has complete control over the whole subject, and may, therefore, do the most liberal justice. Even admitting that the officers of the Court have no authority to warrant expressly, or by legal implication, still the Court may interfere; and, pursuing the example of a Court of equity, may do justice to those who have suffered an incidental injury from judicial proceedings, which are entirely in invitos. March 16th.
^1 -7 Wheat. Rep. 526.
^2 -Smart v. Wolff, 3 T.R. 323.
^3 -3 Bl. Com. 107; 2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law, 107; 2 Saund. 259; Cro. Eliz. 685; Doug. 594; Bee's Adm. Rep. 370.
^4 -Sugd. Vend. 34. 115., 1st Am. ed. Saville v. Saville, 1 P. Wms. 746. Morehead v. Frederick, Sugd. Vend. Appx. 524. Lawrence v. Cornell, 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 542.
^5 -Hibbert v. Shee, 1 Camp. 113. Klinitz v. Surry, 5 Esp. Rep. 267. Gardiner v. Gray, 4 Camp. 144. Sands v. Taylor, 5 Johns. Rep. 404. Sweet v. Colgate, 20 Johns. Rep. 196. Bradford v. Manly, 13 Mass. Rep. 139.
^6 -13 Mass. Rep. 139.
^7 -1Peters' C. C. Rep. 317.
^8 -3 T.R. 757; 4 T.R. 177; 5 Esp. Rep. 75; 2 Camp. 555; 12 Mod. 514; Willes, 407; 1 Camp. 259, and cases collected in Paley on Agency.
^1 -Attorney-General v. Day, 1 Ves. sen. 221. Bragden v. Bradbear, 12 Ves. 472. Mason v. Armitage, 13 Ves. 25. 3 Munf. 102. Sugd. Vend. 78.
^2 -The Creditors of Thayer v. Sheriff of Charleston, 2 Bay, 170.
^3 -Simonds v. Catlin, 2 Caines, 63.
^4 -2 P. Wms. 745.
^5 -Sugd. Vend. 34. 49. 115. 185. App. 524. Lawrence v. Cornell, 4 Johns. Ch. Cas. 542.
^1 - Dig. l. 1. t. 1. De AEdilio. Edicto.
^2 - Domat's Civ. Law, b. 1. t. 2. s. 11.
^3 - Poth. Pand. Just. l. 21. t. 1. s. 4. art. 1. No. 5.
^4 -Trait e du Contrat de Vente, s. 232.
^5 -Van Leeuwen's Com. b. 4. c. 20. s. 4.
^6 -Ib. s. 6, 7.
^7 -Van Leeuw. Com. b. 4. c. 19. s. 1. 12.
^8 -Nixon v. Hyscrott, 5 Johns. Rep. 58. Gibson v. Colt, 7 Johns. Rep. 390.
^9 -Paley on Agency, 165. 302, 303. 3 Johns. Cas. 70. 1 T. R. 205. 3 T. R. 757. 4 Taunt. 242. 1 Dow's Rep. 44. 15 East. 45.
^10 -Paley on Agency, 165. 170, 171.
^11 -Roll. Abr. 95. pl. 30. 2 Roll's Rep. 270.
^1 Paley on Agen. 163. note 9. Dickinson v. Lilwall, 4 Campb. 279.
^2 -Fonbl. Eq. 379, note 12.
^3 Hob. 347. 2 Day, 128. 1 Hayw. 464. 1 Hardin, 50.
^4 -Sugd. Vend. 1, 2. 195. 200. 2 Bay 383. 7 Johns. Rep. 392. 4 Dig. 4. 4. 16. 4.
^5 -Sugd. Ven. 3. 1 Tyl. Rep. 404. 2 Com. Con. 265. 2 Dall. 146. 322. 2 Wood. 415.
^6 -Co. Litt. 102 b.
^7 -2 Bay, 17. 19. 380. 1 Tayl. 1. 2 Swift's Conn. Law, 120.
^8 -5 Johns. Rep. 354. 18 Johns. Rep. 403. 2 Caines' T. R. 48.
^9 -12 Johns. Rep. 468. 10 Mass. Rep. 197.
^10 -5 Ves. 508. 46 Ves. 678. 10 Ves. 505. Sugd. Vend. 199.
^11 -1 Fonbl. 109. 373. 1 Johns. Rep. 96. 129. 274. 4 Johns. Rep. 421. 1 Bin. Rep. 27. 6 Johns. Rep. 5. 2 Caines, 48. N. H. Rep. 176. Peake's N. P. Cas. 123. 2 East, 448. 2 Caines' R. 48. 55. 1 Dall. 217. 4 Dall. 334.
^12 -2 Caines' R. 202.
^2 -6 Taunt. 108. 4 Camp. 169.
^3 -13 Mass. Rep. 140.
^5 -19 Johns. Rep. 291. 20 Ib. 196.
^6 -2 Caines, 55. 3 T. R. 57. 20 Johns. Rep. 203. 2 Comyn. Cont. 273.
^1 -13 Mass. Rep. 143.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v.