504 WHEAT STOPrED IN TrvAXSlTU. 



On the trial the above Aicts beiiio; provoel by the plaint i AT, who gave 

 eviJencc that he did not request them to s[)read it out thin, and that 

 the seed was not hot and mouldy. Wigldman J. directed a nonsuit, 

 with leave to enter a verdict, if there w^as any evidence of an acceptance 

 of any part of the turnip-seed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. It was 

 held by Lord Camphcll O.J. and Ei-Ie and Crompion J J. ; Wiijldman J. 

 tliss., that there being evidence to go to the jury that the seed was 

 spread out thin, neither because it was out of condition, nor by plaintiff's 

 authority, there was evidence that it was spread out thin as an act of 

 acceptance, and that therefore the nonsuit was wrong. Still as the 

 evidence was slight the Court merely directed a new trial, and did not 

 feel justified in entering a verdict for the plaintiff. But per ErU J. : 

 " If the seed was liot and mouldy, it would be a very proper thing to 

 spread it out thin and air it, so as to prevent it from perishing, I 

 should be very unwilling to say that if perishable property is delivered 

 out of condition, the vendee who rejects it must sutler it to perish or 

 take to it as owner." 



In Kicliohon v. Bower, lulieat pvrcliascd hy smnple was consigned 

 fi-om Peterborough to Messrs. Pavitt, millers, at a railway station in 

 London. When it arrived on j\Iay 4 they received notice that it had 

 been warehoused at the company's warehouse, and entered in the com- 

 pany's books in their names. The company, as usual, allowed the 

 consignees to use the warehouse 14 days, without charge. On Saturday, 

 May 9, Messrs. Pavitt's carman brought a bulk sample to them from the 

 station, which they examined and found it equal to the sample, but said, 

 " JJoti't cart the ivheat to tJie mill at present.^^ That afternoon Messrs. 

 Pavitt found themselves in difficulties, and on the Monday morning 

 stopped payment. On that day they gave the vendor an order for the 

 wheat, which he took to the railway station. On a feigned issue to try 

 whether the wheat was the property of the assignees of Messrs. Pavitt or 

 the vendor, it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that, allowing 

 the transitus was ended, there was no binding contract here without an 

 acceptance, and there was no valid acceptance of the wheat by Messrs. 

 Pavitt within sect. 17 of stat. 29 Car. II. c. 3. And scriihle per Lord 

 CampMI C.J., there was no valid stoppage in transitu, for the transitus 

 was ended. x\nd per Hill J., the question whether there has been an 

 acceptance of part or not, under the 17th section of the statute, is a 

 question as to the intention of the buyer to be manifested by outward 

 act : a jiart accei)tance is not sufficient always. And per Erie J., unless 

 the defendant could have sued the bankrupt in an action for goods sold 

 and delivered there was not an acceptance. 



In order- to aatixfij the 17 Ih sectivn of the Statute of Frauds, on a sale 



