229 



and laid aside for him, (the whole amounting to 

 more than £10,) and desired them to be sent home, 

 and when sent he refused to take them, held first 

 that the contract was joint, and second, that there 

 was no acceptance to take the case out of the 

 statute of frauds. The case of Hodgson v. Le Bret 

 was cited, but no observation was made on it by 

 the court ; and the tenor of C. J. Abbott's obser- 

 vations was, that there must be an actual transfer 

 and handing: over of the thins^ from the seller to the 

 buyer, and a taking possession on the part of the 

 latter. The former case of Hodgson v. Le Bret 

 seems to be distinguished from this case, by the 

 fact of the name having there been written by the 

 purchaser on the goods set apart for him. Here, 

 though a mark was made, the name was not writ- 

 ten, and it w^as specially noticed by the court. 



With respect to the sufficiency of a delivery of 

 part, to take the case out of the statute, there is 

 another case which ought to be noticed in con- 

 nexion w^ith Hodgson v. Le Bret. It is the case of 

 Thompson v. Macirone, 4 D. and R., 619. " Where 

 goods to the value of £144 were made pursuant to 

 order, but continued by desire of the vendee upon 

 the premises of the vendor, excepting a part to the 

 value of £2. IO5., which, the former took away ; 

 held that there was no delivery and acceptance of 



