12 



CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC. 



Various acts 

 of owuersliip. 



A ready - 

 money trans- 

 action. 



Elmore v. Stone (k) the buyer directed expense to be in- 

 curred, and the directing of that expense was considered 

 evidence of an acceptance on his part. That case goes as 

 far as any case ought to go, and I think we ought not to 

 go one step beyond it. There is this distinction between 

 that case and this, that there an expense was incurred on 

 account and by the direction of the buyer; here there 

 is none. But I must say, however, that I doubt the 

 authority of that decision. This case is clearly within the 

 statute" (/). 



However, the case of Elmore v. Stone (/•) seems to have 

 been properly decided, because the plaintiff, being a Licerij- 

 stabte keeper as well as a Horse dealer, the buyer, by order- 

 ing him to keep the Horses at livery, directed expense to be 

 incurred ; and the plaintiff, by consenting to keep them at 

 livery, relinquished his possession as owner, and held them 

 only as Lieery-dahle keeper. 



In the case of Carter v. Touissant (ni), which was a sale 

 upon credit, the purchaser had exercised various acts of 

 ownership over the Horse, which were held to be no ac- 

 ceptance within the statute. It appeared that the Horse 

 was sold by a parol contract for 30/., but no time was fixed 

 for the payment of the price. The Horse was fired in the 

 purchaser's presence, and with his approbation, and it was 

 agreed that the Horse should be kept by the vendor for 

 twenty days without any charge being made for it. At 

 the expiration of that time the Horse was sent to grass by 

 the direction of the purchaser, and by his desire entered as 

 the Horse of the vendor. Chief Justice Abbott and Jus- 

 tices Bayley and Holroyd distinguished this case from 

 Elmore v. Stojie (/»•), on the ground that there the plaintiff 

 was both a. Lirer //-stable keeper and a Horse dealer; but that 

 here he was not ; and held that there was no acceptance of 

 the Horse by the purchaser within the 17th section of the 

 Statute of Frauds. 



The following case was a ready-money transaction, and 

 the agreement was that the Horse should be taken away 

 and the money paid on a certain day ; on that ground 

 there was held to have been no acceptance within the sta- 

 tute, although the purchaser had exercised various acts of 

 ownership over him. It seems A. entered into a parol 



{k)i:imore v. Stour, 1 Taimt. 458. 



{!) Howe V. ralmer, 3 B. & Aid. 



324. And see Itickard v. Moore, 



38 L. T., N. S. 841— C. A. 



(;«) Carter v. 'Touissant, 2 B. & 

 Aid. 855 ; S. C, 1 D. & E. 515. 



