224 



Elmore v» Stone, 1 Taunton, 458. — " If a man 

 bargains for the purchase of goods, and desires the 

 vendor to keep them in his possession for an espe- 

 cial purpose for the vendee, and the vendor accepts 

 the order, this is a sufficient delivery of the goods 

 within the statute of frauds. It is no objection to 

 a constructive delivery of goods, that it is made by 

 words, parcel of the parole contract of sale." 



The plaintiff kept a livery stable, and dealt in 

 horses. He demanded 180 guineas for two, which 

 the defendant refused in the first instance to give, 

 offering a lower price. The offer being rejected, 

 the defendant sent word that " the horses were his, 

 but that as he had neither servant nor stable, the 

 plaintiff must keep them at livery for him." The 

 plaintiff upon this removed them out of his sale 

 stable into another, and upon his afterwards bring- 

 ing an action for the price, the defendant set up the 

 statute of frauds, and contended that the contract 

 was not binding. Mansfield, C. J. assimilated the 

 case to that of goods at a wharf or in a warehouse, 

 where the usual practice is to deliver the key of the 

 warehouse, or a note, to the wharfinger, who makes 

 a new entry of the goods in the name of the vendee. 

 After the defendant had said that the horses must 

 stand at livery, and the plaintift^ had accepted the 

 order, it made no difference whether they stood at 



