SP ENG

Hi thirl

greement accounts.

>. balance different nd what ul of his 329 with vhich de- & to proof the case, to John e parties, » whether bec were Tarvey & nt is due, plaintifis

he tiled the work imologute ld be set » to Dinrdered it, t of may granted ; ssed, and S3197.97, 66; the Pnt upon lants inas to the » are un-

vires Of urelv of wed, and

in conpon the e before ss of the » to Diner mind ve been e, Plain-

t estate,

he note ræec by harge 15

that the merchant making it becomes an insurer. See Troplong, Cuutionnement, 37. Plaintiffs here were insurers of Converse, they wrote this down; they might have done otherwise and kept this affair in suspense hud they pleused, but they did not. 2nd. The correctness of the charge of $2400 or commissions on hemp purchases, and sales of cordage by Converse himself. This is charged in june 1866. This was not referred for report to Dinning, and was apparently disallowed by the judgment « quo, and we think with reason. S3rd. The right of defendant to the 1408.75 claïimed as short credit on the Harvey & Bolton transaction. The sale to Harvey & Bolton, in november 1865, Was repudiated aferwards by them. The sum of $4045.63 was credited to Converse in pluintiffs exhibit n° 8, october 1866, in respect of this, as being the result of that transaction, but we find that, really, Converse is entitled to SI408.75 more, for plaintifis must “be held to have guaranteed this sale too, Plaintitis drew on Harvey & Bolton for the amount of the sale : they accepted, but refused to take the rope afterwards, throwing it back upon plaintiffs, who sold it at Chicago. It was argued that Converse’s silence, after receipt of the last accounts current rendered by plaintitis, is tantamount to an admission of the correctness of the accounts, #. g., the 24th october 1868, account stated the Chicago loss, crediting Converse With only $4045 in respect of that transaction, and Converse made no objection till august 1867. Yet Converse is not yet estopped from objecting ; his silence is not fatal to him. Massé, Dr. Com., n° 1461 to 1470. Upon the whole, except in so far as se tting aside Dinnings report, we see uo reason to disturb the condemnation of plaintitfs towards the incidental plaintiff, to the same amount as by the jndgment complained of, and plaintitts principal demand will stand disinissed. Costs of Superior Court against plaintiffs and incidental defendant. The costs here divided. (3 R. C., 67).