1 6 DELIVERY. 



16. Mode of Delivery. — If tlic horse be in tlic possession 

 or custody of tlie seller, delivery takes place by handing over 

 the animal to the purchaser or his servant ;(«) or by sending 

 it to his stable ; or by sending it to any person authorised to 

 receive it on his behalf ; or to any one whose stables are used 

 by the buyer as his OAvn ; or to a carrier by sea or land to be 

 at the buyer's order; (6) or by delivery to the buyer of the 

 key of a stable where the horse is ;(c) or by delivery into the 

 buyer's own ship, or one hired by time by the buyer, or 

 entirely at his command, {d) In these cases the delivery is 

 actual, (e) and the property is transferred beyond recall. The 

 property, however, does not pass in a cash transaction by 

 inadvertent transference of the horse into the possession of 

 the buyer without payment being demanded, and the seller 

 in such a case may demand restoration, but must do so 

 immediately .( / ) 



17. Effect of Delivery. — In Scotland, the property being 

 still untransferred till delivery, if the seller become bank- 

 rupt before delivery has taken place his creditors attach a 

 horse sold, even after the price is paid.(f/) The Mercantile 

 Law Amendment Act(/0 makes no change in this law, but 

 it contains two enactments regarding it requiring observation. 

 The first is, that " where goods sold but not delivered have 

 been allowed to remain in the custody of" the seller, the 

 diligence of his creditors is excluded in competition with the 

 buyer enforcing his contract, (i) But, where not only the 



(a) Henrij v. Bunlop, 1842, 5 D. 3. Seller allowing cattle to be driven away 

 by buyer's servant notwithstanding orders to his own servant not to let them be 

 taken away. 



(b) B. Pr. 1302. See § 23. 



(c) Ersk. ii. 1, 19 ; Maxwell tfc Co. v. Stevenson d- Co., 1831, 5 W. .and S. 269. 



(fZ) Whether delivery to a common carrier is delivery to the consignee is a ques- 

 tion of circumstances, a bill of lading not being conclusive upon this point. See 

 T> p • 218 



'(e) B. Pr., § 1302. (/) B.C. i. 258. ([j) B. Pr. 1300. 



(/i) 19 & 20 Vict. c. 60, §§ 1, 4. 



{i) Wyper v. IJarvcy, 1861, 23 D. 606 ; Lord President Inglis in Black v. 

 Incorporation of Bakers, 18C7, 6 M. 136. 



