HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0396 and id is 1 raw text is: MILLINGAR V. ]ARTUPEE.
Syllabus.
The civil code of Louisiana, when the action was com
menced, limited to one year the time in which actions could
be brought for the rescission of sales of slaves on account of
redhibitory defects, and hence it is contended, that the pur-
chaser had the same period within which to offer to return
the slaves to the vendor.
The rule that he who seeks to rescind a contract of sale,
must first offer to return the property received, and place
the other party in the position he formerly occupied, so far
as practicable, prevails equally at the civil and the common
law. It is a rule founded in natural justice, and requires
that the offer shall be made by the purchaser to his vendor
upon the discovery of the defects for which the rescission is
asked. The vendor may then receive back the property,
and be able by proper care and attention to preserve it, or
:e may have recourse upon other parties, the'remedies
,against whom might be lost by delay. He must be per-
mitted to judge for himself what measures are necessary for
his interest and protection, and if the purchaser by delay
deprives him of the opportunity of thus protecting himself;
he cannot demand a rescission of the contract.
The purchaser must use reasonable diligence to apprise
his vendor of the defects alleged, and to make the tender;
and what is reasonable diligence is a question of fact, to be
decided by the jury according to the special circumstances
of each case.*
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
MILLINGAR V. HARTUPEE.
1. The twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act does not give jurisdiction to
this court in cases of decisions by the courts of a State against mere asser.
-ions of an exercise of authority under the United States.
Hence, where a party claims authority under an order of a court of the
United States, which, when rightly viewed, does not purport to confer
any authoritymupon him, the writ will be dismissed.
Rider v. Wright & Marshall, 10 Louisiana Annual, 127
[Sup. Ot.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0396&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)