ORDER FOR DELIVERY ON THIRD PERSON. 513 



verdict. The Court made a rule for a nonsuit absolute. Lord EUen- 

 horough C.J. said : "In the present case there is no other remedy for 

 the plaintiff but to proceed against Sharpe upon the award. If indeed 

 Sharpe had accepted the money tendered, that would have been a ratifi- 

 cation of the award, and an assent on his part to the transfer of the 

 property ; but without that I cannot conceive that the property was 

 transferred by the mere force of the award." 



An order for delivery made hy the seller to the huycr of a rick of hay 

 on a third person, who has consented to let it remain on his land, is a 

 sufficient delivery as Mween such seller and buyer, tlis latter having 

 nndertahn to carry it away himself; and according to Salter v. Wool- 

 lams such third person is clearly liable in trover if he refuses permis- 

 sion to remove the hay, as on the sale the property in the hay passed to 

 the vendee, and if any accident occurred the loss would have fallen 

 upon him. 



In the above case Messrs. J. and R. Aldridge distrained for rent on some 

 growing grass, which was subsequently made into two ricks of hay on 

 the premises, under 11 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 8, and the defendants as auc- 

 tioneers advertised the ricks for sale by auction in two lots ; the hay, by 

 the written consent of H. Jackson, the distrainee, to remain from the 

 day of the sale, July 24th, till the 28th of September. This memoran- 

 dum of consent was indorsed on the conditions of sale, and read by the 

 auctioneer at the commencement of the sale ; and the plaintiff bought 

 one of the ricks for £30, and paid the money. He went next week to 

 the premises to remove it, but was not allowed to do so. He accord- 

 ingly brought an action of assumpsit against the auctioneers. A ver- 

 dict was found for the plaintiff, both on non-assumpsit, and "that 

 the defendant did deliver to the plaintiff possession of the last-men- 

 tioned rick of hay " issues ; but the Court of Common Pleas made 

 the rule absolute for a non-suit, as the contract, on the part of the de- 

 fendants with the plaintiff, was merely that they would give him a ful 

 legal authority to remove, which they had fulfilled by procuring and in- 

 corporating into their articles of sale the written agreement from Jack- 

 son, who had attorned to the sale." 



The measure of damages in trover where an offer to return the chattels 

 has been tnade after writ issued, is the value of the chattels at the time of 

 the conversion, and not the difference in their value between the time of 

 the conversion and the offer to return (Homer v. Mellars). 



In Randall v. Roper, which was an action brought by a 'purchaser on a 

 breach of icarranty on a sale of goods, evidence given by sub-purchasers icho 

 had bought portions of the goods tvith a similar warranty, that they had 

 made claims against the purchaser for breach of warranty, is admissible. 



