1

[Para 1, CJ Cockburn's judgment:] Here the defendant agreed to buy a specific parcel of oats. The oats were what they were sold as, namely, good oats according to the sample. The buyer persuaded himself they were old oats, when they were not so; but the seller neither said nor did anything to contribute to his deception. He has himself to blame. The question is not what a man of scrupulous morality or nice honour would do under such circumstances. The case put of the purchase of an estate, in which there is a mine under the surface, but the fact is unknown to the seller, is one in which a man of tender conscience or high honour would be unwilling to take advantage of the ignorance of the seller; but there can be no doubt that the contract for the sale of the estate would be binding.

Am I right to guess that the bolded means 'exemplied by'? Which definition of put applies? Or is put of a prepositional verb, and if so, how does the juxtaposition of these two words effect/imply this meaning?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Does it make more sense if you move the commas... "The case put, of the purchase of an estate in which..." or "The case brought forward..." Put is, in this instance, meaning 'referred to' whilst actually saying 'as heard before a previous court, the outcome of which is known to all parties', or 'referred to previously during this court as a comparable case'
    – DoneWithThis.
    Nov 9, 2014 at 10:20
  • I was just considering writing something along those lines as a tentative answer, @Tetsujin. (In fact, I'd got as far as My guess w[ould be].) However, I really am far too tired for proper writing. Why don't you compose an answer?
    – TRiG
    Nov 9, 2014 at 10:21

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Does it make more sense if you move the commas?

"The case put, of the purchase of an estate in which..."
or "The case brought forward, of the..."
or even "The case mentioned during the lawyer's summation, of the..."

Put is, in this instance, meaning 'referred to' whilst actually saying "as heard before a previous court, the outcome of which is known to all parties", or "referred to previously during this court as a comparable case"

Very similarly, one could 'put an argument' or even 'put forth a case, argument or proposition' etc.

I'm not certain whether this usage of 'put' is actually archaic, or simply 'legalese'. Adding the complexity of 'put forth' would make me think archaic, but it might just be acceptable as modern legalese.

In the context of a judge's pronouncement, it sits nicely on the ear, so long as you can mentally insert that comma & have a familiarity with 'legalese' even if only from watching similar things on TV.

It's not something I'd use in everyday speech.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.