53;J SALE AND MARKET PRICE — RECOVERY OF DIFFERENCE. 



Recoveritig diff&rence between sale and marJcet price where sheep not 

 delivered. — The plaintiff having contracted with the defendant to buy 

 of him a lot of 48 sheep at 53s. a head (less than the market price at 

 the time), to be paid for on delivery, took away five, for which he paid 

 in a day or two, and agreed to take the rest in a fortnight. Within 

 that time, before any application for the remainder, the defendant sent 

 them away and re-sold them. The vendee then within a fortnight 

 applied for 19 "to make half the sheep at half the time," offering to 

 pay for them, and finding that they were re-sold, sued the vendor on the 

 contract and also in trover. It was held that he was not entitled on 

 either count to recover the full value, but only the difference between 

 the price he was to have paid for them and the market price when he 

 was entitled to them, and the rule was made absolute to reduce the 

 damages on the second count from £118 19s. to £5. And per Curiam: 

 " It is to be understood that though in a case like this the plaintiff may 

 not recover more than this, it is possible that if a stranger had converted 

 the goods, the plaintiff would have been entitled as against him, to re- 

 cover the whole value of the amount or proceeds. That might depend 

 upon whether the jilaintiff would be liable to the seller for the contract 

 price ; but probably in such a case, he would be, for there the seller 

 would be in no default ; and if he could not deliver the goods, owing to 

 the wrongful act of a third party, it may be that he could recover the 

 whole price, and that the vendee would be entitled to recover the whole 

 from the stranger" (Chinery v. Viall). 



Violation of consignor'' s orders to carrier as to delivery. — Although the 

 consignor of goods directs a carrier to deliver them to the consignee at a 

 particular place, the carrier may deliver them wherever he and the con- 

 signee agree. The plaintiff having sold corn by sample to be delivered 



to the purchaser at his mill at B , sent the corn by the defendants' 



railway, carriers paying the freight to B station, and an extra sum 



for cartage from B to the mill. In pursuance of general orders 



previously given by the consignee to the defendants, but not communi- 

 cated to the plaintiff, the defendants left the wheat at their station at 

 B., and advised the consignee of its arrival, who examined it, but left 

 it there for two months, and afterwards refused to take it. The wheat 

 was deteriorated in quality during that time. It was held that the 

 defendants were not liable to an action by the plaintiff for not deliver- 

 ing at the mill, as the non-delivery there was pursuant to the orders 

 of the consignee, and that it made no difference in this respect that 

 the plaintiff could not recover the price of the wheat from the pur- 

 chaser, in consequence of there being no acceptance of the wheat within 

 the meaning of the Statute of Frauds ; and scmble the rights of the 



