LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS 55 
any person who was seeking to enforce a chattel mortgage on the 
products taken after their sale to the association. 
In a California case, 9 raisins grown by a producer who had entered 
into a marketing contract with the Sun-Maid liaisin Growers of 
California were seized by the sheriff while they were in sweat boxes 
and before their delivery to the association, to satisfy a judgment 
which had been obtained by a creditor against the grower of the 
raisins. The Sun-Maid liaisin Growers of California then brought 
suit against the sheriff for the recovery of the raisins. The court 
held that title to the raisins was in the association at the time the 
sheriff seized them, and hence that the raisins could not be used to 
satisfy the claim which the creditor had against the grower. In 
determining that title had passed, the court emphasized the fact that 
the contract provided : 
That the buyer (Sun-Maid Raisin Growers, a corporation) does hereby pur- 
chase and the seller (Betel) does hereby sell all of the raisin grapes to be 
produced during the years 1923 to 1937, inclusive. * * * This instrument is 
intended by the parties to pass to and vest in the buyer a present title and right 
of possession to all of the crops of raisin grapes covered hereby. The buyer 
shall at all times have the right to enter upon said premises and remove the 
said crops therefrom ; but the right of the buyer to so enter and remove said 
crops shall not affect the obligation of the seller to pick, cure and deliver the 
same as above provided. 
The Court said : 
Title passed when first the raisin grapes became property which could be the 
subject of ownership and sale. A potential existence of the grapes seems to 
answer this requirement. Arques v. Wasson. 10 This, of course, was long before 
the attachment which was levied upon a portion of the crop while in " sweat 
boxes " undergoing the final curing process. When the grower's creditor, there- 
fore, attached the raisin grapes or the raisins, whichever they were at the time 
of the levy, they belonged to respondent. 
It is true that at common law, as declared in some of the States, 
the sale of a commodity then capable of delivery, without its delivery 
to the buyer, is either conclusive or presumptive evidence of fraud, 
if subsequent to the sale third parties in good faith acquire rights 
therein, 11 but the common law rule just stated is held to have little 
or no application in cases involving the sale of crops to be grown. 12 
This conclusion is apparently based upon the fact that a lawful 
contract may be made for the sale of crops to be grown, 13 and as 
the crop is not then in existence, its delivery at the time of sale is 
manifestly impossible. 14 
In many of the States, statutes have been passed making the reten- 
tion of possession of goods sold by the seller either presumptive or 
conclusive 15 evidence of fraud as to third persons subsequently ac- 
quiring rights in the property sold. Generally speaking, such stat- 
utes are so drawn that they have no application to the sale of grow- 
ing crops or crops to be grown. For instance, in the case cited 
above, involving the Sun-Maid Kaisin Growers of California, it 
9 Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California v. Jones, Cal. App. -, 274 P. 557, 
later affirmed by the State supreme court ; see also Texas Hay Ass'n v. Angleton State 
Bank (Tex. Com. App.), 291 S. W. 846. 
10 Arques v. Wasson, 51 Cal. 620, 21 Am. Rep. 718. 
11 24 R. C. L. sec. 312. 
12 Bellows v. Wells, 30 Vt. 599; McCarty v. Blevins, 13 Tenn. 195; Hull v. Hull, 48 
Conn. 250, 40 Am. Rep. 165 ; 24 R. C. L. sec. 315. 
"Dickey v. Waldo, 97 Mien. 255, 56 N. W. 608, 23 L. R. A. 449. 
"24 R. C. L. sec. 315 ; Bellows v. Wells, 36 Vt. 599. 
u Brown v. Herrick, 34 Idaho, 171, 200 P. 117. 
