538 SEIZURE AND SALE UNDER BILL OF SALE. 



plaintiff could not recover oiT goods bargained and sold, and there not 

 having been a delivery proved, the plaintiff could not recover on goods 

 sold and delivered, and the verdict for the defendant was confirmed by 

 the Queen's Bench {Kirhy v. Trotter). And in Emmott v. Riddell, a 

 proposal on one side, not answered by the other until after a delay of 

 some months, and then not assented to, but some months afterwards 

 acceded to, was held by Martin B. to be no evidence of a contract. 



Vemhr liable for fahe representation of length of lease even ivhen vendee 

 had means of knowledge. — The mere possession by a purchaser of the 

 means of knowledge, does not prevent the vendor's liability for a false 

 representation ; and the vendor having sold a lease as of a longer term, 

 he knowing it to be a shorter, was held liable though he had sent a draft 

 conveyance reciting the lease, the recital not having been referred to by 

 the purchaser, and the plaintiff's verdict was upheld by the Queen's 

 Bench (Ferrier v. Peacoclc), 



Assignment hg hill of sale to attorneg from client not void on ground of 

 champerty. — Anderson v. RadcUjfe and WalJcer was affirmed in error, 

 and^^r Curiam : "The Court of Queen's Bench which decided Simpson 

 V. Lamh (7 E. & B. 84, 26 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 121) distinguished this 

 case from that, on the ground that here there was not an absolute 

 purchase, but only a security for costs already due." 



Seizure and sale under a hill of sale. — On a bill of sale with covenant 

 for payment of the money at a distant day " or at such other day or 

 time" as the creditor, the assignee, might appoint by notice in writing, 

 it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that reasonable notice was 

 required, and the assignee having made a demand of payment in half- 

 an-hour, and in default of payment seized and sold, he was liable to an 

 action of trespass, but that the damage must be estimated with reference 

 to the probability of the debtor's having been able to obtain the money 

 had reasonable notice been given ; and semhle pier Crompton J. that a 

 reasonable notice means not merely such time as might be necessary for 

 him to get the money, supposing him to have had it ready, but time to 

 raise it, supposing that he had it not {Brightleg v. Norton). 



Portion of tjankrvpfs farm produce sold and placed separate does not 

 pass to assignees. — Whore, according to the custom of some parts of 

 England, the sold produce of a farm is stacked apart from the unsold 

 produce thereof, with liberty for the purchaser to remove such sold 

 produce from time to time as he may require it, and at the date of the 

 bankruptcy of the seller a portion only of such sold produce has been 

 removed, it was held that the purchaser was entitled to the benefit of 

 the unremoved portion, and that the same did not pass to the assignees 

 of the seller as being in his order and disposition, within the meaning of 



