Laidlaw v. Organ
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the district court for the Louisiana district. The defendant in error filed his petition, or libel, in the court below, stating, that on the 18th day of February, 1815, he purchased of the plaintiffs in error one hundred and eleven hogsheads of tobacco, as appeared by the copy of a bill of parcels annexed, and that the same, were delivered to him by the said Laidlaw & Co., and that he was in the lawful and quiet possession of the said tobacco, when, on the 20th day…
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for the Louisiana district. The defendant in error filed his petition, or libel, in the court below, stating, that on the 18th day of February, 1815, he purchased of the plaintiffs in error one hundred and eleven hogsheads of tobacco, as appeared by the copy of a bill of parcels annexed, and that the same, were delivered to him by the said Laidlaw & Co., and that he was in the lawful and quiet possession of the said tobacco, when, on the 20th day of the said month, the said Laidlaw .& Co., by force, and of their uwn.wróng, tbok possession of the same, and…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Marshall
The question in this case is, whether the intelligence df.éxtrinsic circumstances, which might influence the price of the commodity, and which was exclusively within the knowledge of the vendee, ought to haye been,,communicated by him,to the vendor? 'j’he court is of opinion that he Was not bound to communicate it. It Would be difficult to circumscribe the contrary doctrine within proper limits, where tho means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties. But at the same time, each party must take care not to say or do any thing tending to impose upon the other. The court thinks…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Laidlaw v. OrganSupreme Court of the United States · 1817