IN SEAPtCH OF A HORSE. 251 



part of the furniture of his new horse, it would fall 

 within the principle, and be an actual delivery, 

 althouo-h he left his own saddle behind him. But 

 if, on the other hand, the horse had been sold for 

 <£50, and the furniture had been separately sold for 

 50s., this would not be one entire contract, and, 

 consequently, the delivery of the saddle would not 

 be a constructive delivery of the horse, and the 

 bargain for the latter would be void, under the 

 statute. In connection with the case of Hodgson v. 

 Le Bret, the following also deserves notice, as show- 

 ing that the distinctions on the subject of putting a 

 written mark on the article purchased, are rather 

 nice : 



In Baldey v. Parker, 3 D. and R., 220.— '^ Where 

 a person entered a tradesman's shop, and selected 

 various articles, some of which he marked with a 

 pencil, and others were cut from piece goods and 

 laid aside for him, (the whole amounting to more 

 than £10,) and desired them to be sent home, and 

 w^hen sent, he refused to take them, held first that 

 the contract was joint, and second, that there was no 

 acceptance to take the case out of the statute of 

 frauds. The case of Hodgson v. Le Bret was cited. 



