REFUSAL OF SELLER TO SHOW BULK. 483 



corresponded with the sample. Tlie 700-bnshel parcel was shown him, 

 but the other of 1400 was not there. PlaintiflF ofl'ered to send a load 

 to him for his inspection, or to send for a bushel at that time ; but de- 

 clined to show tlie whole, as he did not choose to let defendant into his 

 connections. Under these circumstances, the latter refused to have the 

 wheat, althoug4i he received a message a few days after, that the whole 

 1400 bushels were in his loft, ready for inspection and delivery, on a 

 bankers' bill being given for the price. It was held by the Court of 

 Queen's Bench that, under these circumstances, the contract was re- 

 scinded, and. that the seller, having refused to show the wheat when 

 required, could not afterwards insist upon the performance by the 

 buyer. 



A variation made in a contract without the. surety's consent discharges 

 him, although his risJc was not thereby increased. And so it was held by 

 the Court of Queen's Bench, in Witcher v. James Hcdl. The agreement 

 here was to the effect that one Joseph Hall was to have thirty cows for 

 the dairy year, at £7 10s. a cow per annum to be paid quarterly in 

 advance, beginning from 4th of February, 1824. On that day only ten 

 cows had calved, but the plaintiff in March added two ; and what with 

 deaths, slips, and takings away with the consent of Joseph Hall, the 

 latter had, on the average, only twenty-eight cows. All these deviations 

 were made without the knowledge of the defendant, who had agreed to 

 pay the rent in consideration that plaintiff performed his agreement. 

 Plaintiff got a verdict for the rent of as many cows as Joseph Hall 

 actually had, but a rule for a nonsuit was made absolute. The Court 

 {Litttedcde diss.) held that the rent was an entire, and not a divisible 

 contract ; and that the defendant was a mere surety, and plaintiff in an 

 action against him must prove a literal performance of the contract. 



Where the defendant agreed by a wrdten contract to purchase of the 

 plaintiffs 300 hogs of bacon, to be delivered at fixed times and in speci- 

 fied quantities, and after a part of the bacon had been delivered requested 

 the plaintiffs as the sale was dull not to press the delivery of the residue, 

 to which they assented — this request was held by the Court of Queen's 

 Bench, in Guff v. Penn, to be only ajmrol dispensation of the perform- 

 ance of the original contract, in respect to the times of delivery, and 

 therefore not affected by the Statute of Frauds, and the defendant was 

 held liable for not accepting the residue within a reasonable time after- 

 wards. 



The ordinary rule of buying by sam})Je was thus laid down by Cress- 

 well J. in Goolc V. Riddelien : " Under ordinary circumstances a person 

 who buys goods by sample may return them if they do not answer the 

 sample, but he must do this within a reasonable time ; and if after 



