Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/327

 JHAPMAN Vi SUCCESSION OF WILSON. 315 �ley, Wilson & Co. intended to guaranty the payment of his notes. But it is contended that the validity of the marriage settlement, by which the payment of the notes waa secured, was guarantied in law by the mere transfer thereof. It is now laid down as a general rule that the sale of a chattel by the English law implies an af&rmation by the vendor that the chattel is his, and therefore he warrants the title, unless it be shown by the facts and circumstances of the sale that the vendor did not intend to assert ownership, but only to transfer such interest as he might have in the chattel sold. Benjamin on Sales, (2d Ed.) 523. Formerly the rule oicav- «at emptor was stated to be the general one, and it may be so still, theoretically; but slight circumstances have always suf- ficed to raise an assertion of ownership; amounting in effect to a guaranty of title, and it bas been justly said that in ail ordinary sales the party who undertakes to sell exercises thereby the strongest act of dominion over the chattel which he proposes to sell, and thereby is understood to affirm that he is the trae owner. Erle, G. J., in Eichholtz v. Banister, 17 G, B. N. 8. i08. And it may be conceded that, in ordi- nary cases of delivery and acceptance of a specifie thing in satisfaction or compromise of adebt, there is an implied under- standing or condition that the debtor guaranties his author- ity to dispose of the thing in that way, and that a failure in this behalf will place the parties back in their original rela- tions to each other. But there can be no doubt that when a contrary understanding is had a different consequence will f ollow. �The question in each case will be, did the crediter take tihe thing out and out, or did he only take it conditionally ? In the present case, Bradley, Wilson & Co. were seeking to compromise with their creditors. They had various assets to dispose of, some good, some doubtful, some bad; though which were good, which doubtful, and which bad was in many cases unknown. These were ail they had to offer. Their object was to get a discharge from their obligations. It is not presumable, to begin with, that they meant to guaranty the yalidity or value of the various assets which they turned ����