Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/134

 122 FEDERAL REPORTER. �purehase for reasons not connected with aiiy diminislied con- fidence in its value. So far as market value can be predicated of sueh a piece of property, the weight of testimony is decid- edly that it was worth ail that Copelin paid for it. Whether it was wise or foolish to make such a purehase, would depend very much upon the amount which the purchaser oould fairly afford to risk in a venture of the uncertain character of min- in^ property, upon his willingness to wait for good times, if they became bad, and many other matters. �When the times ehanged, in 1873, great properties were loBt, and many persons became bankrupt from the mere fall in market price of goods and lands, upon which they owed T(rhat they supposed to be a mere fraction of the true value. At the present moment those same properties may have rocovered a considerable part of their former value. This mine was thus depreciated, and was sold for a very small priee upon a foreclosure of a mortgage held by this defendant. In a letter printed in the record, the defendant attributes this loBB, which the representatives of Copelin have suffered, to their ha ving chosen to disavow the contraot, instead of aid- ing him to pay the debt and preserve the property. With the foreclosure this case is not concerned. �There is no evidence of any fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence on the part of the defendant. These allega- tions of the bni are unsupported, unless where they are dis- proved. There is no evidence that the defendant knew, or suspected, or had reason to know or suspect, that Copelin was of unsound mind ; that the defendant sold the property to Copelin for more than he was ready to sell it for to others ; that the transaction was in any respect, excepting its magni- tude, diiierent from any ordinary transaction of purehase and sale, sofar as the defendant was concerned. �The sale was repeatedly ratified by Copelin and his attor- neys, if he was capable of ratifying and of appointing an attorney. The complainants deny that a certain letter of the defendant to Copelin's attorney, Mr. Lackey, was an offer to rescind the bargain. It is not literally such an offer, but it is an intimation that the defendant bas a right to rescind, ��� �