15 U.S. 178 (1817)
The dispute arose from a commercial transaction for the sale of a commodity between Laidlaw and Organ in which the vendee held exclusive knowledge of extrinsic circumstances that might influence the price of the commodity.1 Although the means of intelligence were equally accessible to both parties in the transaction, the vendee did not share this information with the vendor prior to completing the sale.2
The case then came before the Supreme Court of the United States for review.3 The Court heard the case in 1817.4 Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court, which addressed the questions of disclosure and judicial instruction.5 The Supreme Court considered the appeal and determined that the trial court's approach required correction through further proceedings in the lower court.6
Whether the intelligence of extrinsic circumstances, which might influence the price of the commodity, and which was exclusively within the knowledge of the vendee, ought to have been communicated by him to the vendor?7
A vendee is not bound to communicate to the vendor intelligence of extrinsic circumstances which might influence the price of the commodity when the means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties. However, each party must take care not to impose upon the other.8
No. The vendee held exclusive knowledge of extrinsic circumstances that might influence the price of the commodity.9 The means of intelligence were equally accessible to both parties in the transaction.10 Applying this rule to the established facts demonstrates that the vendee was not bound to communicate the intelligence.11 The court determined that it would be difficult to circumscribe the contrary doctrine within proper limits under these circumstances.12
The vendee was not required to communicate the information to the vendor.13
Whether the question whether any imposition was practised by the vendee upon the vendor ought to have been submitted to the jury?14
The absolute instruction of the judge was erroneous, and the question whether any imposition was practised by the vendee upon the vendor ought to have been submitted to the jury.15
Yes. The established facts show that the district court judge provided an absolute instruction to the jury.16 The court concluded that this approach was erroneous because the imposition issue required jury determination rather than a directed resolution by the judge.17 The judgment therefore cannot stand.18
The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded to the district court of Louisiana with directions to award a venire facias de novo.19