3

ed one counters instead. It is not a question of warranty:
but whether the defendant has not delivered something
which, though resembling the article contracted to be sold,
is of no value."

Park J- concurred.
[Bosaupuet?] J- concurred.
[Coltman?] J.- concurred.

Fuller & als u fruith & al 1 Car. & P 197, [11 Eng. Cd. R. 366]. ([?]P.
1824).

Action was to recuse amount of [?] bill of Exchange
which had been [?[ by [?] for defendants as agents
for one Simpson, to whom they paid [on?] the proceeds [?] before
notice of the forgery. Bill was endorsed by [?] & ano-
ther, but not (it would seem), by defendts.

Abbott C. J. "The only question of fact in this case, is,
whether the defendants paid [?] the money to Simpson
before they had notice of the forgery: but I am of opin-
ion, in point of law, that they are liable, whether they did
so or not". My opinion therefore, is that the [?], in this
case, are entitled to a verdict."-

[Gampertz?] v Barttett 2 El. & Bl. [75 Eng C L. R.] 849 (QB.
1853).

Action for money had [?]. Defendt sold [pet?]
an unstamped bill of Exchange, purputing to be [?]
abroad, & which both parties believed to have been to
drawn. Defendt did not endorse the bill & it was a
sale outhunt recourse. The bill turned out to have been
made in England, & to be unavailable for want of
stamps, & the parties pursing bankrupt, [?] brought
their actions.

Lord Campbell [?]- "Having heard the argument,
I think that the action in [?], on the ground
that the article does not answer the description of
that which was sold, [?] a foreign bill." "I think, therefore
that the money paid for it may be [?] as paid in
mistake of [facts?]. The law is, I think accurately laid down
in the passage cited from Addion on Contracts. If, being
what was sold, the bill was valueless because of the insol-
vency of the parties, the sender would not be answerable;
but he is answerable if the bill be [?]."

The passage cited from Addison & their [sanct?]
is from [?]. Cents (2 Ed) 162. It is as [?]- "So if a man
into the money market, with a bill of Exchange, or a

ed one counters instead. It is not a question of warranty:
but whether the defendant has not delivered something
which, though resembling the article contracted to be sold,
is of no value."

Park J- concurred.
[Bosaupuet?] J- concurred.
[Coltman?] J.- concurred.

Fuller & als u fruith & al 1 Car. & P 197, [11 Eng. Cd. R. 366]. ([?]P.
1824).

Action was to recuse amount of [?] bill of Exchange
which had been [?[ by [?] for defendants as agents
for one Simpson, to whom they paid [on?] the proceeds [?] before
notice of the forgery. Bill was endorsed by [?] & ano-
ther, but not (it would seem), by defendts.

Abbott C. J. "The only question of fact in this case, is,
whether the defendants paid [?] the money to Simpson
before they had notice of the forgery: but I am of opin-
ion, in point of law, that they are liable, whether they did
so or not". My opinion therefore, is that the [?], in this
case, are entitled to a verdict."-

[Gampertz?] v Barttett 2 El. & Bl. [75 Eng C L. R.] 849 (QB.
1853).

Action for money had [?]. Defendt sold [pet?]
an unstamped bill of Exchange, purputing to be [?]
abroad, & which both parties believed to have been to
drawn. Defendt did not endorse the bill & it was a
sale outhunt recourse. The bill turned out to have been
made in England, & to be unavailable for want of
stamps, & the parties pursing bankrupt, [?]