Ruiz

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this ease the plaintiffs sue upon a written contract, wherein one of their stipulations is to deliver the defendants a certain quantity of sound rice.

It will not be disputed that every one must be held bound by the plain and obvious meaning of his engagements. The plaintiffs, to maintain their action, must show that they have done all which they agreed to do. But in this suit they failed to show that the rice was sound, and the defendants were not allowed to show that it was unsound. ■

This omission was a failure to make out their case, and consequently they should not be permitted to recover on the contract.

The District Court was probably led into error on account of what is alleged to be a delivery of the whole amount sold, in the shape of a particular cargo, and doubtless construed *358 it into the purchase of a special cargo; in which case [358] the Court * would have been right in allowing the action to proceed on the contract, turning the defendants round to their action on the warranty, or allowing them in the same action to recoupe the damages under proper averments in the pleadings.

But the contract here declared on is not of…