IGAYLOR v. GOPEB; 51
“ Where parties have compromised generally. on all their dinerences which 4
they might have had with one another, the titles which they then know noth-
ing of, and which were afterwards discovered, are not a. cause of rescinding
the transaction, unless they have been kept concealed on purpose by the deed
of one of the parties. But the transaction becomes void if it relates only to
an object upon which it is proved by the titles newly discovered that one of A
the parties has no right at all." · r A
There is no doubt that the partiescompromised generally on all
theirdiiferences, which were as to the amount due and what should
be given and received in payment. This compromise was reduced to
writing, as required by article 3071 of the Code., For all the matters
involved, all the diilerences-settled, this compromise should have “a
force equal tothe authority of the thing adjudged." Rev. Civil Code,
3078. But the matter in issue here was not involved in that compro- V
mise. The ownership of the five bonds was not a difference between V A
the parties at that time. Gopes & Phelps held themselves out as the
then owners of the bonds, with the power to transfer them. No doubt T
of this ownership then existed on either side.
There was nothing to compromise about it, no more than as to the
ownership of the money paid over under the same compromise. (lan
it be contended that Copes & Phelps might havepaid over counter- ·
feit money and then shielded themselves under the compromise ? ` `
It seems to me that article 3073 of the Code applies ,t_0 this case:
¢• Transactions regulate only the differences which appear clearly to be com.-
prehended in them by the intention of the parties, whether it be explained in ‘
a general or particular manner, unless it be the necessary consequence of what
_is expressed ; and, they do not extendto differences which the parties never
intended to include in them. The renunciation which is made therein to all
rights, claims, and pretensions, extends only to what relates to the diiferences
on which the transaction arlses." _ _
It is not pretended that the title or ownership of the bonds on the
part of Copes & Phelps was in any way a ditierence comprehended in
the compromise by the intention of the parties as made and expressed,
nordoes it seem to me to be a necessary consequence’of»what was
expressed. ` v »
It is well settled under Louisiana law that wherever there is a sale,
or ansexchange, or a giving in, payment, of property, unlesswaived i
by the contract, there isau implied warranty that the person ·so sell- V ~
ing, or exchanging, or giving in payment is the owner of the thing .
sold, exchanged, or given. I Bev. Civil Code, arts; 2475, 2501, 2569, r Q
2667. ·~ r o   . ,- _ ivyt l