Ketchum v. Duncan,
96 U.S. 659 (1877)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Ketchum v. Duncan, 96 U.S. 659 (1877)

Ketchum v. Duncan

96 U.S. 659


1. While it is true that it is essential to a sale that both parties should consent to it, yet the consent of the former owner need not be expressly given, but may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction.

2. The title to interest coupons passes from hand to hand by mere delivery. A transfer of possession is presumptively a transfer of title, but does not import a guaranty of payment.

3. An estoppel in pais can be set up only by a person who has been misled to his injury.

4. The Court, on considering the facts in this case, holds that the coupons of May and November, 1874, of the bonds of the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company, represented as owned by Alexander Duncan, are existing liabilities of that company protected by its first mortgage, and that they have no equity superior to that of the bonds from which they were taken or of the subsequently maturing coupons.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.