228 



purchase was viewed as a separate transaction: 

 the report of the case confirms this inference ; if 

 therefore a seller sells the horse and all his furni- 

 ture /or one sum, and delivers the bridle, or saddle, 

 or even the halter, though he retains the horse, 

 this vs^ould be a delivery within the statute : or to 

 put a more common case ; if the purchaser were 

 even to exchange the saddle on his own horse, 

 and ride away upon the saddle which he had pur- 

 chased as a part of the furniture of his new horse, 

 it would fall within the principle, and be an actual 

 delivery, although he left his own saddle behind 

 him. But if, on the other hand, the horse had 

 been sold for £50, and the furniture had been 

 separately sold for 505., this would not be one entire 

 contract, and consequently the delivery of the 

 saddle would not be a constructive delivery of the 

 horse, and the bargain for the latter would be void, 

 under the statute. In connexion with the case of 

 Hodgson V. Le Bret, the following also deserves 

 notice, as showing that the distinctions on the 

 subject of putting a written mark on the article 

 purchased, are rather nice : 



In Baldey v, Parker, 3 D. and R., 220.—" Where 

 a person entered a tradesman's shop, and selected 

 various articles, some of which he marked with 

 a pencil, and others were cut from piece goods 



