THE ACCEPTANCE AND EECEIPT. 11 



However, the case of Elmore v. Stone (k) seems to have 

 been properly decided, because the plaintiff, being a llver!/- 

 stahle keeper as well as a Jiorse dealer, the buyer, by order- 

 ing him to keep the horses at livery, directed expense to be 

 incurred ; and the plaintiff, by consenting to keep them at 

 livery, relinquished his possession as owner, and held them 

 only as Uvery-stahle keeper. 



In the case of Carter v. Touissant (/), which was a sale Various acts 

 upon credit, the purchaser had exercised various acts of »* ownership . 

 ownership over the horse, which were held to be no ac- 

 ceptance within the statute. It appeared that the horse 

 was sold by a parol contract for 30/., but no time was fixed 

 for the payment of the price. The horse was fired in the 

 purchaser's presence, and with his approbation, and it was 

 agreed that the horse should be kept by the vendor for 

 twenty days without any charge being made for it. At 

 the expiration of that time the horse was sent to grass by 

 tbe direction of the purchaser, and by his desire entered as 

 the horse of the vendor. Chief Justice Abbott and Jus- 

 tices Bayley and Holroyd distinguished this case from 

 Elmore v. Stone {k), on the ground that there the plaintiff 

 was both a Uvery-stahle keeper and a horse dealer ; but that 

 here he was not ; and held that there was no acceptance of 

 the horse by the purchaser within the 17th section of the 

 Statute of Frauds. 



The following case was a ready-money transaction, and A ready- 

 the agreement was that the horse should be taken away ^^^^l *™°^" 

 and the money paid on a certain day ; on that ground 

 there was held to have been no acceptance within the 

 statute, although the purchaser had exercised various acts 

 of ownership over him. It seems A. entered into a parol 

 agreement to purchase a horse of B. for ready money, and 

 to take him away at a time agreed upon. Shortly before 

 the expiration of that time A. returned and ordered the 

 horse to be taken out of the stable, when he and his 

 servant mounted, galloped and leaped him ; and after they 

 had so done, his servant cleaned him, and A. himself gave 

 directions that a roller should be taken off and a fresh one 

 put on, and that a strap should be put upon his neck, 

 which was consequently done : A. then requested that he 

 might remain in B.'s possession a week longer, at the 

 expiration of which time he promised to fetch him away 



Oc) Elmore y. Stone, 1 Taunt. (Z) Carter v. Touissant, 2 B. & 



45B ; 10 E. E. 578. Aid. 855 ; -S'. C. 1 D. & K. 515. 



