18 DELIVERY. 



ment of the seller's possession as owner, as the buyer had 

 thus ordered expense to be laid out upon them, and the 

 plaintiff had consented to keep them at livery. («) Lord 

 Mansfield, C.J., said : " After the defendant had said that 

 the horses must stand at livery, and the plaintiff had that 

 order, it made no difference whether they stood at livery at 

 the vendor's stables, or whether they had been taken away 

 and put in some other stable. The plaintiff possessed 

 them from that time, not as owner of the horses, but 

 as any other livery-stable keeper might have them to 

 keep." 



In another case of sale of a horse on credit, a seller agreed 

 to keejo a horse for a buyer for thirty days for nothing, and 

 at the expiry of that time it was sent to grass at the defend- 

 ant's request, " as the seller's horse," it was there held that 

 the acceptance had not taken place, (h) 



Acts done for mere examination are not sufficient to effect 

 delivery ;(c) but an offer to re-sell a horse as his own is con- 

 sidered an act of appropriation by the buyer, (d) 



Where a number of horses are sold on approbation and 

 return, (e) delivery of them to a carrier is not delivery to the 

 buyer, because there has been no opportunity for the exercise 

 of option. (/) Delivery is entirely independent of payment 

 or non-payment of price, (g) 



If the horse be in the custody of a third part}', delivery 

 takes place by giving notice that the third party shall hold 

 the horse for the buyer instead of the seller. Thus, a horse 

 in the hands of a carrier by land, or factor, is transferred by 

 his acceptance of the seller's notice to change the custody ; 



(a) Elmore, cit. 



(h) Carter v. Touissant, 1822, 1 D. and R. 515. See also Tempest v. Fitzgerald, 

 1820, 3 B. and Aid. 680. 



(c) Nicliohon v. Botver, 1857, 28 L.J., Q.B. 97. 



(d) Chaplin v. Rogers, 1800, 1 East, 192 ; but see Richard v. Moore, 1878, 38 

 L.T.,N.S. 841. 



(c) § 21. 



(/) Coombs V. B. and E. Railway Company, 1868, 27 L.J. Ex. 401. 

 (g) Per Lord President Blair in Broughton v. Aitchison, 1809, 15 F.C. 411. 

 See also Melrose v. Ilastie, 1851, 13 D. 880. 



