10 



CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC 



Seller may 

 become agent 

 for buyer. 



What has 

 been held 

 sufficient as 

 an acceptance 

 and receipt. 



structive possession by the vendee must be clearly siicli, as 

 that by it the vendor would lose his lien on the goods (./). 



In all cases of this description there may be such a 

 change of character in the seller as to make him the agent 

 of the buyer, so that the buyer may treat the possession 

 of the seller as his own {(j) ; and the question for the Jury 

 will be, whether the seller held the subject-matter of the 

 sale as owner, or merely as keeper for the buyer. Thus, 

 when A. agreed to purchase of B. a Ovirriage then standing 

 in B.'s shop, A. at the same time desiring that certain 

 alterations might be made on it, the alterations having 

 been made, the Carriage was, at A.'s request, placed in 

 the back shop. A. called at the shop on a Saturday, and 

 requested B. to hire a Horse and a man for him, and to 

 send the Carriage to his house on the following day, in 

 order that he might take a drive in it. A. had previously 

 intimated his intention to take the Carriage out a few 

 times, in order that, as he was going to take it abroad, it 

 might pass the Custom-IIouse as a second-hand Carriage. 

 The Carriage was accordingly sent to and iised by A. on 

 the Sunday, A. paying for the hire of the Horse and man. 

 A. afterwards refused to take or pay for the Carriage. It 

 was held that there was a sufficient acceptance and receipt 

 of the Carriage by A. before the Sunday, within the 17th 

 section of the Statute of Frauds {Ji). 



In some cases great difficulty arises in deciding whether 

 there has been such an acceptance and receipt as consti- 

 tutes a constructive delivery under the statute; and we 

 shall see by the following cases that some very nice dis- 

 tinctions have been drawn : Elmore v. Stone (i) is a leading 

 case on the subject, and, though its authority was doubted 

 by Mr. Justice Bayley in Hoire v. Palmer (./), it will be 

 seen that it may be distinguished from that and all the 

 following cases. 



In Elmore v. Stone (/) an action was brought for the 

 price of two Horses, and a question arose whether there 

 had been a delivery of them under the Statute of Frauds. 

 The plaintiff was a Lirerij-stalile keeper and Horse dealer. 

 He asked 180 guineas for two Horses, which the defendant 

 at first refused to give, but afterwards sent word that 



( /) Holmes V. Hoskbis, 9 Ex. (J) Elmore v. Stone, 1 Taunt. 458. 



753. See also Kibble v. Goii(//i, 38 L. T., 



{(/) Castle V. Sicordo; 30 L. J., N. S. 204— C. A. 

 Ex. 310. U) iioi-<''<: V. Fulmcr, 3 B. & Aid. 



{h) Beaumont v. Brcugeyi, 5 C. B. 324. 

 301. 



