Difference between revisions of ".MzU0NTE.MTIzOTc5"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with " Isbell vs Peters")
 
m (Protected ".MzU0NTE.MTIzOTc5" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
                                                                          Isbell vs Peters
+
Isbell vs Peters
 +
Halsey as the agent of Peters sold a negro man slave Edmund to Isbell on the 2 Jany 1833 for $300 payable 1 Jany 1834-  The slave was badly Knock Kneed. The sum agreed to be given considering this visible defect is conceded to be a fair or sound price.  Immediately after the sale Halsey assigned the Note to Peters without recourse. After it fell due Peters commenced suit & prosecuted it to a judgement and Isbell applied for and obtained an Injunction, alledging in his bill - That he purchased the slave for a full & fair price - That he was induced to purchase by the false representation of soundness on the part of Halsey - That the slave was unsound at the date of the purchase, laboring under a latent disease of which he shortly died -  That he was altogether valueless.  That this unsoundness was known to Halsey and by him fraudulently concealed - That he acted as the concealed agent of Peters for the purpose of the letter perpetuating the fraud. But in the event of being unable to establish these charges against the agent Halsey and upon the hypothesis of Halseys innocence of fraud, deceit or false representation the pff. charges that Peters was cognizant of the unsoundness of the slave and sought to perpetuate the fraud by the employment of an innocent agent, who was ignorant of the latent defect.    Halsey in his answer states he does not remember whether he disclosed his agency but thinks it was perfectly understood between the parties that he had no interest in the transaction.  He denies explicitly that he made any false representation of soundness or concealed from the parties

Latest revision as of 23:36, 31 January 2022

Isbell vs Peters Halsey as the agent of Peters sold a negro man slave Edmund to Isbell on the 2 Jany 1833 for $300 payable 1 Jany 1834- The slave was badly Knock Kneed. The sum agreed to be given considering this visible defect is conceded to be a fair or sound price. Immediately after the sale Halsey assigned the Note to Peters without recourse. After it fell due Peters commenced suit & prosecuted it to a judgement and Isbell applied for and obtained an Injunction, alledging in his bill - That he purchased the slave for a full & fair price - That he was induced to purchase by the false representation of soundness on the part of Halsey - That the slave was unsound at the date of the purchase, laboring under a latent disease of which he shortly died - That he was altogether valueless. That this unsoundness was known to Halsey and by him fraudulently concealed - That he acted as the concealed agent of Peters for the purpose of the letter perpetuating the fraud. But in the event of being unable to establish these charges against the agent Halsey and upon the hypothesis of Halseys innocence of fraud, deceit or false representation the pff. charges that Peters was cognizant of the unsoundness of the slave and sought to perpetuate the fraud by the employment of an innocent agent, who was ignorant of the latent defect. Halsey in his answer states he does not remember whether he disclosed his agency but thinks it was perfectly understood between the parties that he had no interest in the transaction. He denies explicitly that he made any false representation of soundness or concealed from the parties