53C) DA^IAGES FROM DELAY TN DELIVERY OF GOODS. 



within the statute." And per AffUor J.: "I agree with my brothers 

 Crompton and BlacHurn that Graham v. Marsoti (5 Bing. N. C. 603, 

 and 8 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 324), is not inconsistent with Johnson v. 

 Dodgson (2 M. & W. 653, and 6 L. J. Ex. 185). In the former case 

 the circumstances failed to raise the question of authority which is 

 raised here" {Durrcll v. Evans). 



Delay in delivery of goods may not he set tip in reduction of damages 

 on breach of warranty.— In an action for goods sold and delivered, or 

 in an action upon a guarantee of the payment of the price of such 

 goods, it is not competent for the defendant to set up in reduction of 

 damages, the fact that the goods were delivered by the vendor to the 

 vendee, after the stipulated time in the breach of the agreement be- 

 tween them. And per 3IeUor J.: "There is a manifest distinction 

 between the principle of Mondel v. Steele (8 M. & W. 858, 871), and 

 the endeavour to set off damages arising from delay or similar causes " 

 (Oasfler and Another v. Pound). 



Putting oil into plaintiff's Miles by defendant passes the property in 



it, There was an agreement between the plaintiff and C, for the sale 



to the plaintiff of all the oil produced from the whole crop of pepper- 

 mint grown on his farm in the year 1858, and C, after having had the 

 oil weighed, according to contract, and put into the bottles, which the 

 plaintiff had sent to him for that purpose, sold it to the defendant. It 

 was held by the Court of Exchequer, on the authority of Aldridge v. 

 Johnson (5 W. R. 703), and Logan v. Le Ilesiirier (6 Pr. C. 116), 

 that the bottles having been sent by the plaintiff and filled up by C. or 

 his agent, the property in the oil had passed to the plaintiff, and that 

 he could maintain an action of trover against the defendant {Langton 

 V. niggi7is). 



Contract for turnip seed to satisfy Statute of Frauds.— The plaintiff, a 

 seed merchant in Kent, wrote to the defendants, seedsmen in London, 

 offering to sell the seed of growing turnips ; to which the defendants 

 replied, asking the quantities and price for white globe turnip seed. 

 The plaintiff answered that all he could offer at present was the pro- 

 duce of five acres at 18s. Gd. per bushel delivered at the Bricklayers 

 Arms Station. The defendants offered to take two or three acres at 

 16s. Gd. The jjlaintiff wrote saying he could not accept less than 18s., 

 his contract price with London houses. The defendants then wrote the 

 following letter, dated March 21st : " In reply to your favour of this 

 morning, we beg to say, as our neighbours are giving you 18s. per 

 bushel for white globe turnip, we as a beginning with you will take 

 the produce of three acres at that price, to be delivered, as soon as 

 liarvested, free of carriage to London station. Let us know what other 



