REFUSAL TO DELIVER TO BANKRUPT VENDEE. 499 



delivery of the barley to pay Knight £23, the difTerence between the 

 price of the bullocks and the corn. Plaintiff sent the bullocks to 

 Knight, who sold them, and also sent 200 half-quarter sacks to be 

 filled, ordering them to be sent home by the railway. Knight //7fe^/ 

 155 of tlic sacks from such hulk, lid never delivered them at the railimfj 

 station ; and subsequently lecoming a bankrupt, tlie corn ivhkU had been 

 filled was ^mt back again to the bulk whence it had beentalieii. It was 

 held by the Court of Queen's Bench, that the sacks having been sent 

 and filled by Knight, the property in that part passed to the plaintiff, 

 although they had never left Knight's premises, as plaintiflF having 

 examined the grain, and approved of it, the contract was complete 

 when the separation was made by Knight. 



Lord Campbell C.J. observed that the argument as to the property 

 in the whole 200 quarters having passed to the plaintiflP, though it was 

 part of a larger bulk, derived from the bargain between the parties 

 and the fact of the bullocks being sent to Knight, was untenable ; be- 

 cause it is well settled that where there is a purchase of a part of a larger 

 quantity of goods in bulk, the property does not pass to the vendee 

 until separation. " No part of the property in bulk," said his Lordship, 

 " ever passed to the plaintiff ; because until there was a separation the 

 whole bulk belonged to the bankrupt, and what part vested in the 

 purchaser could not be ascertained. Nothing can be clearer than that 

 when a part of goods in bulk is purchased, until separation and appro- 

 priation by tlie vendor, and assent given by the purchaser, there is no 

 transfer of the property; therefore as to the 155 sacks, I think there 

 must be judgment for the plaintiff ; and as to the remainder, our judg- 

 ment must be for the defendant. Looking at the bargain, and what 

 was done under it, when the barley was put into the sacks the property 

 in it was appropriated and vested in the plaintiff, because there ivas a 

 prior assent by the plaintiff. He examined the goods, a^iproved of them, 

 and sent his sad! s to be filled; and if any subsequent assent were neces- 

 sary, I think that ivoiild be supplied by the orders given to send the goods 

 by railway. Nothing remained to be done by the vendor ; he had ap- 

 propriated a part with the consent of the vendee, just as much as if the 

 vendee had sent boxes, and when they were filled, the keys had been 

 forwarded to the vendee ; in such a case it could not be disputed that 

 the property would vest in the purchaser. Then as to the alleged con- 

 version, I see no diificulty ; for the goods being in the plaintiff, he has 

 done nothing to divert it, nor anything which can be complained of. 

 It was a wrongful act of the bankrupt's to take the corn out of the 

 sacks, and then to bring the property into his hands again. By doing 

 this he has converted the plaintiff's property, and therefore the defendants, 



K K 2 



