231 



from the vendor by a similar conveyance, vide 

 Hart V. Sattley, 3 Campbell, 528 ; and it would 

 appear from Button v. Solomonson, 3 Bosanquet 

 and Puller, 582, that a delivery of goods on behalf 

 of the vendee, to a carrier not named by the 

 vendee, is a good delivery. I apprehend that this 

 is about as much law upon the question of delivery 

 as my readers will desire, or as I may venture 

 upon without hazarding the safety of my book. 



On the second ordinary question of dispute, the 

 payment of earnest money^ or part payment of the 

 price, there is little to be said ; even lawyers can 

 scarcely make their ingenuity avail them, to raise 

 a constructive payment of money, — the payment of 

 earnest must be bona jide ; as w^here a person 

 passed a shilling over the hand of the vendor, and 

 returned it into his own pocket, it was held not to 

 be a payment of earnest within the statute ; vide 

 Blenkinsop v. Clayton, 7 Taunton, 597 : a doubt 

 however, has been raised, what must be the pro- 

 portion of money paid to make it " earnest" within 

 the meaning of the statute. 



There is an essential difference between payment 

 of " earnest," and part performance : in the case of 

 a contract for land, the statute of frauds does not 

 provide that payment of -^ earnest" shall save the 

 contract ; but part performance of the bargain will 



