56 BULLETIN 110 6, TJ. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
was urged that the sale of the raisins was void because of the statute 
of frauds of California, but the court pointed out that this statute 
only declares that transfers of property without the delivery there- 
of are void " if made by a person having at the time the possession 
or control of the property." Obviously at the time the marketing 
contract covering the raisins was signed the grower did not have 
possession or control of the grapes which had not then been grown. 16 
Some of the State statutes relative to the retention of possession of 
goods sold by the seller make the retention of such possession merely 
presumptive evidence of fraud as to third persons. In a Minnesota 
case, referring to such a statute, the court said : 
It provides in express terms that such possession shall be presumed to be 
fraudulent and void as against subsequent purchasers in good faith, unless 
those claiming under such sale make it appear that the sale was made in good 
faith, and without any intent to defraud such purchasers. 17 
In this case a person purchased an automobile and allowed the 
machine to continue in the possession of the seller, who subsequently 
borrowed money on the machine, giving as security a chattel mort- 
gage thereon. The buyer of the automobile brought suit against 
the person who claimed it under the chattel mortgage, and as the 
court found that the buyer of the automobile had acted in good faith, 
the buyer won. 
Either by reason of statutes or by decisions of the courts, the rule 
with respect to the retention or possession of goods sold by the 
seller being only presumptive evidence of fraud as to third persons, 
has been adopted in many of the States. 18 
The common-law rule in some of the States made the retention 
of the possession of goods sold void as to third persons. The rule, 
apparently, at common law had no application to growing crops, 
and this common law, as well as the rules prescribed by statutes of 
frauds, is, generally speaking, not applicable to growing crops. 
Again at common law and under statutes, generally speaking, if a 
third person subsequent to the sale of goods (the possession of which 
is retained by the seller) has notice of the fact that the goods have 
previously been sold, his rights are junior to the rights of the person 
who purchased the goods in the first instance, and under these cir- 
cumstances the fact that there has been no actual delivery of the 
goods is immaterial ; 19 for the general rule is that " a purchaser with 
notice of a prior contract to sell or to lease takes subject to such 
contract, and is bound in the same manner as his vendor to carry it 
into execution." 20 
16 Sun-Maid Raisin Growers v. Jones, Cal. App. 274 P. 557 ; see also Bloom v. 
Welsh, 27 N. J. Law 177 ; Flynt v. Conrad, 61 N. C. 190, 93 Am. Dec. 588 ; Cook v. Steel, 
42 Tex. 53. 
17 Wilson v. Walrath, 103 Minn.. 412, 115 N. W. 203, 24 L. It. A. (N. S.) 1127; see also 
Kimball v. Cash, 176 N. Y. S. 541, 107 Misc. Rep. 363 ; Godman v. Olson, 38 N. D. 360, 
165 N. W. 515. 
l8 Shaul v. Harrington, 54 Ark. 305, 15 S. W. 835; Hollidav v. McKinne, 22 Fla. 153; 
Osborn v. Ratliff, 53 Iowa 748, 5 N. W. 2 Iowa 778 (746) ; Gardiner Bank v. Hodgdon, 
14 Me. 453 ; Brooks v. Powers, 15 Mass. 244, 8 Am. Dec. 99 ; Johnston v. Dick, Hill & 
McLean, 27 Miss. 277 ; Rea v. Alexander, 27 N. C. 644 ; Hombeck v. Vanmetre, 9 Ohio 
153 ; Benjamin v. Madden, 94 Va. 66, 26 S. E. 392 ; Poling v. Flanagan, 41 W. Va. 191, 
23 S. E. 685 ; Fitzgerald v. Meyer, 25 Neb. 77, 41 N. W. 123 ; Williams v. Brown. 137 
Mich. 569, 100 N. W. 786 ; Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer, 136 N. Y. 305, 32 
Am. St. Rep. 737, 32 N. E. 849 ; W. A. Patterson Co. v. People's Loan and Savings Co., 
158 Ga. 503, 123 S. E. 704. 
"Hatch v. Oil Co., 100 U. S. 124; Clark v. Shannon & Mott Co., 117 Iowa 645, 91 
N. W. 923 ; Bridgham v. Hinds, 120 Me. 444, 115 A. 197 ; Dieckmann v. Young, 87 Mo. 
App. 530 ; 35 Cyc. 304, 345. 
2 * Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, 3d Ed. sec. 688 ; Union Pacific Railway Co. v. 
McAlpine, 129 U. S. 305, 9 S. Ct. 286 ; Gore v. Condon, 82 Md. 649, 33 A. 261. 
