227 



the purchaser, thereby taking the case out of the 

 statute of frauds." 



Ill this case two months elapsed, during which 

 the hay remained in the plaintiff's yard. Lord 

 Kenyon observed, " Where goods are ponderous, 

 and incapable, as here, of being handed over from 

 one to another, there need not be an actual de- 

 livery, but it may be done by that which is tanta- 

 mount, such as the delivery of the key of a ware- 

 house in which the goods are lodged, or by delivery 

 of other bidicia of property ; now here the defend- 

 ant dealt with this commodity afterwards as if it 

 were in his actual possession, for he sold part of it 

 to another person." 



The strictness with which the courts treat the 

 question of delivery may be gathered from the 

 following case: 



Hodgson V, Le Bret, 1 Campbell, 233.— "If 

 the purchaser of goods, at the time of sale, write 

 his name upon a particular article, with intent 

 to denote that he has purchased it, and to appro- 

 priate it to his own use, this is enough to take the 

 sale, as to the article written upon, out of the 

 statute of frauds ; but not as to other articles 

 bought at the same time." 



It should be observed here that the articles were 

 at separate prices ; and I infer from this that each 

 (^ 9 



