494 MEANING OF MARKET VALUE. 



to make liiiii a canvas tent covering, the canvas to l)e equal to pattern, 

 and of the marM value of llrf. per yard, and the making to be charged 

 at 5^/. per yard, and it wns agreed that if the market rahio of the canvas 

 should be less than that, the amount {i.e., the difference) should be 

 deducted, the Court of Common Pleas held that the " market value " 

 must be taken to mean the price of the commodity in the market as 

 between the manufacturer and an ordinary purchaser ; and that those 

 words were not to receive a different interpretation because a person 

 requiring a large quantity might have purchased the canvas at a lower 

 rate {Orchard v. Simpson). 



What com! Hides a delivery of harh came before the King's Bench for 

 decision in Simmons v. Swift. Here the owner of a stack of bark entered 

 into a contract to sell it at a certain price 2)er ton, and the purchaser 

 agreed to take and pay for it on a certain day specified, and a part was 

 afterwards weighed and delivered to him. It was held that the property 

 in the residue did not vest in the purchaser until it had been weighed, 

 that being necessary to ascertain the amount to be paid, and that even 

 if it had vested, the seller could not before such weighing maintain an 

 action for goods sold and delivered. 



But where, as in Tarling v. Baxter, the defendant agreed to sell 

 flainiiff a stack of hay for £145 on the 4th of February, to le paid for in 

 one month, and to stand for three on the defendants piremises, pUintiff 

 stipulatiny that it should not be cut till it teas paid for, and the plaintiff 

 accepted a bill for the amount on the 8th of January, and on the 20th 

 of that month the stack was accidentally burnt, the Court held that the 

 plaintiff could not recover back the price, as there was a contract for an 

 immediate sale, by which the property in the hay vested immediately in 

 the plaintiff. Litiledale J. said : " Here was an absolute agreement on 

 the 4th of January for the sale and purchase of the hay, to be paid for 

 in a month. According to the seller's contract-note, the buyer might 

 have cut and removed the hay immediately. By the buyer's conti-act it 

 was stipulated that he should not cut the hay until it was paid for. But 

 the property in the hay had already passed to him by the first contract 

 of sale, and all that he did afterwards was to waive his right to the 

 immediate possession. Then the property having passed to the buyer, 

 the loss must fall upon him." 



The sale of a specific chattel on credit, though that credit may he limited 

 to a definite period, transfers the property in the goods to the vendee, giving 

 the vendor a right of action for the price, and a lien on the goods, if they 

 remain in his possession, till that p)rice he p)aid. But default of payment 

 does not rescind the contract ; and such was the doctrine cited by 

 Holroyd J. from Com. Dig. Agreement b 3 in Tarliiig v. Baxter, which 



