EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF FRAUDS. 587 



The statute was furilier extended by 9 Geo. IV. c. 1 4, b. 7, by which 

 it is enacted that, " tlw provisions of the Stalnte of Frauds shall extend 

 to all contracts for the sale of goods to the value of £10 or upwards, 

 notwithstanding the goods may he intended to he delivered at some future 

 time, or mag not at the time of such contract he actually made, procured^ 

 or provided, or fit or ready for delivery, or some act may be requisite 

 for the making or completing thereof, or rendering the same fit for 

 delivery." It is now well settled that the 17th section of 29 Car. II. 

 c. 3, and the 7th section of 9 Geo. IV. c. 14 (Lord Tenterden's Act) are 

 to be read together. The effect of the last-mentioned enactment, there- 

 fore, is to substitute "value" for "price" in the 17th section of former 

 statute, and to adopt a uniform rule in all cases. A contract for the 

 sale of goods of the value of £10 or upwards is not the less within 

 such 17th section, because it embraces something, viz., agistment to 

 which the statute does not extend. Hence, as in Harman v. Reeve, 

 where it was agreed by parol between A. and B. that the former should 

 sell the latter a mare and foal, and should at his own expense keep 

 them until a certain day, and that A. should also for a given time keep 

 a mare and foal belonging to B., and that in consideration of all this B. 

 should fetch away A.'s mare and foal on the day named, and pay him 

 £30, it was held by the Court of Common Pleas that this, so far as it 

 related to the sale of A.'s mare, was a contract within the 17th section 

 of the Statute of Frauds, and void for want of writing, no point having 

 been made at the trial as to the value. 



Where cattle were alleged in the indictment to he the property of a 

 person who, it appeared in evidence, ivas merely the agister, and not the 

 actual owner, the Judges, in Rex v. Woodward, held it to be sufficient. 

 He may also maintain trespass against any one who takes the beasts 

 (2 Roll. Abr. 551). And so where a horse is sold at a re^Dository, the 

 auctioneer may maintain trespass or an indictment for larceny in his 

 own name, if it be stolen before delivery ; and such special property 

 also entitles him to maintain an action for goods sold and delivered 

 against the buyer, though the sale was at the house of such third 

 person, and the goods were known to be his property {Williams v. 

 Millingtoji). The general liabiliig of an agister was considered in Broad- 

 water V. Blot. The defendant, a farmer, had received the plaintiff's 

 horse to agist, but it strayed out of the field with several more of defen- 

 dant's horses, and was lost ; while the others were merely impounded. 

 The defendant had advertised, and offered to bear half of plaintiff's 

 expenses. It did not appear that the loss of the horse was occasioned 

 by the defect of the fences, or that he had strayed through the gates at 

 the time that the witnesses spoke to their being open ; but evidence was 



