50 · r rnommn nmroarmn.
consisting in the consignment to the latter firm for sale of large quantities of
hoop—iron and clasps for cotton ties. The last lot consigned, just prior to hos-
tilities,.amounting_ to about $6,000, were sent without previous order, and
were of inferior quality..whioh, whensold, did not give full satisfaction. The
account of plaintiffs lirm,.as.inade up to March 15, 1861, showed a balance
due from Copes & Phelps of $11,944,23. Matters remained in abeyance dur-,
ing the war. Immediately following peace, about June 10, 1865, the agent
A of plaint-iff¥s firm aplwered in New Orleans to settle affairs with Copes_&
Phelps. The account then appeared to be over $12,000, with about four years'
interest. After negotiations, a settlement was reached tothe effect that
Copes & Phelps released plaintiff’s firm from all reclamations for inferior
quality of goods, and plaintiffs firm received from Copes St Phelps, in full of
all acounts,—
Cash, - · - - . — -·-- · · . · - $3,000
Five railroad bonds of the Vicksburg, Shreveport dt Texas Railroad
Company for -·---·——-- 3,000
Six certificates of Texas land-scrip, 640 acres ea., ---- 3,200
Copes & Phelps' note, dated New Orleans, June 15, 1865, at 6 mo., 1,500
l Copes & Phelps’ note, dated New Orleans, June 15, 1865, at 1 yr., - 1,500
~ l $12,200
At this time the firm of Copes Sn Phelps were not in a flourishing con-
dition, though the above did not constitute all their assets. The railroad
bonds specified remained in plaintiffs hands, without suspicion of their valid-`
ity, or of any defeotiye title to them, until near the close of the, long litigation
in relation to the Vicksburg,. Shreveport & Texas Railroad, when, to the sur-
prise of botlrparties, the bonds were discovered to be worthless, not being
negotiable, and having never been issued by the company, but having been
stolen from the vaultsof the company during a raid by the federal forces on
the town of Monroe, in 1864. The plaintiff, on this discovery, notified the
defendant, and thereafter tendered him the bonds, demanding, in lieu thereof,
the amount for which they had been received in payment. The issue in this
suitis as to whether the defendant is bound to make the plaintiff good.
John H. Kennrwcl, W. W. Howe, and S. S. Prentiss, for plaintiff.
` H. D. Ogden, for defendant.  
Pnannn, J. The theory of the plaintiff is that the bonds were
given in payment, and that as the title has failed the defendant is
bound on his implied warranty. The defendant claims that the whole
settlement amounted to a transaction and compromise, and that
. therein no warranty of titles wasfimplied, as there was no conceal-
ment or fraud. i
The question in the case is one of law, and the juryhas/decided it
in favor of the defendant; Is the decision correct?
The defendant relies on article 3083 of the Revised Civil Code of
Louisiana, which reads: · ·~°