
    Guier & Diehl against Page.
    
      Wednesday, March 18.
    THIS cause was tried at Nisi Prius on the 31st January last, before the Chief Justice, when a verdict was found for the plaintiffs for 1839 dollars 57 cents.
    On a motion by the' defendant for a new trial, which was , , , . , , . now argued, the only question was, as to the true meaning or a sale for approved indorsed paper, which J. R. Ingersoll, for the defendant, contended, meant notes to be approved by the seller. The consequence he said was, that until the seller approved, the contract was open. This was the construction of all the auctioneers ; and it was most convenient, because the credit of paper is a very delicate thing. He' cited, Cooke v. Oxley.
      
       Webster v. Hoban.
      
    
    On a sale for dorsed paper, tion'of law is paper -which ought to heap_proved.
    
    
      
       3 T. jHep. 653.
    
    
      
      
        7 Crunch, 399.
    
   The Court

stopped Mr. Chauncey, who was about to argue for the plaintiffs, being clearly of opinion, that on a sale for approved paper, the construction of law was, paper ■which ought to be approved, and therefore the contract was not open.

New trial refused, and judgment for the plaintiffs.  