120 
Indiana University Studies 
fungible goods. Where there was a sale of goods having a 
so-called potential existence, would the title pass when the 
goods came into existence, freed from any defects of title due 
to rights which had accrued since the time of the original bar- 
gain? In Grantham v. Hawley, 41 the English courts answered, 
Yes. This rule was later limited to crops and the young of 
animals and still later was abolished in England by the Sales 
of Goods Act. In the United States the doctrine was nar- 
rowed so as not to apply to crops to be grown beyond the 
next season, until the United States Sales Act, which followed 
the English in this respect. Yet in the Period of Socializa- 
tion it has been held that, where specific performance would 
lie or a mortgage has been given and damages would be an 
inadequate remedy for a breach of a promise to give security, 
tho the doctrine of potential existence has been abolished and 
the contract is turned into a contract to sell, such contract 
may have equitable effect in the nature of a lien upon the 
goods as they come into existence except against bona fide 
third parties. 
Suppose the sale was for cash, would title pass ? The early 
law of the period held that title would not pass. Payment or 
credit was required. But later there arose a presumption that 
there was an absolute sale but that the seller had a lien in 
lieu of title. 
Contracts. In spite of the emphasis upon freedom of con- 
tract, not many changes in the law of contracts were made 
in this period. Among the few which were made may be 
mentioned the rule which permitted a contract to be discharged 
by an accord, at first (in 1831) in the case of composition, and 
later in all cases if it was the intention of the parties to take 
the accord in satisfaction; and the rule which permitted a 
third party beneficiary to sue on a contract made either for 
his sole benefit (donee) or where the promisee was under 
existing liability to him (payment). In the case of third 
party beneficiaries the courts got themselves into hopeless con- 
flict. All agreed upon insurance cases. England, after first 
deciding in favor of other donee beneficiaries, later decided 
against them. In the United States some courts favored 
donee beneficiaries; others payment beneficiaries; but most, 
both classes of beneficiaries. 
41 Hob . 132 ( 1616 ).; 
