Case Name: Bacon v. Sanford
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1790-01
Citations: 1 Root 164
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bacon v. Sanford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
Bacon v. Sanford.
An action lies for a fraud, in the sale of an order drawn by selectmen on the town treasurer.
ActioN of the case, declaring that on the 17th of January, 1787, the defendant was possessed of two orders, drawn by the selectmen of Woodbury, on their treasurer: one for £67 10s. 2d., dated the 12th of January, A. D. 1779 — one for £43 10s., dated 15th of April, A. D. 1779, both expressed to be for lawful money — drawn in favor of Joseph Perry, and by him indorsed to the defendant; which orders were subject to be reduced by the scale, and were worth about £12 lawful money — which the defendant well knew — yet contriving to injure and defraud the plaintiff, did falsely affirm to Asaliel, clerk and storekeeper to the plaintiff, to induce him to buy them, the plaintiff being then from home, that said orders were not liable to be reduced by the scale, but were equal in value to their nominal sum in lawful money — and the said Asakel, relying on the defendant’s affirmation aforesaid, and being ignorant of their true value, did purchase said orders and paid the nominal sum in lawful money for them, out of the property of the plaintiff, etc. further alleging that he presented said orders to said town treasurer, and that he refused to accept or pay them— Damage £150.
Demurrer — Judgment that the declaration is sufficient, and that the plaintiff recover.
Exceptions to the declaration were — That it is double; laid upon the fraud and upon the protest. 2d. That neither are sufficient to warrant a recovery.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The declaration is not double; it is laid upon the fraud, and its being mentioned in the declaration, that the orders had been refused payment, was immaterial, was not to the point of the action, but to the damages only.
Although the value of public securities and state orders is a matter of public notoriety, equally known to the buyer as the seller; yet this is not tbe case with orders drawn by the selectmen of a town, or by individuals: their value is presumed to be in the knowledge of the seller and not of the buyer.