52 58 61 60 61 58 56 PAGE North of England Joint Stock Banking Company, In re, Holme, Ex parte, 20 L.J. (N. S.) Chanc. 300 53 Oxford and Worcester Extension and Chester Junction Railway Company, In re, Morrison, Ex parte, 20 L. J. (N.S.) Chanc. 296 Parkinson's Trust, In re, 20 L. J. (N.S.) Chanc. 224... Picard. Mitchell, 12 Beav. 486 Pierson v. Barclay, 2 De G. & S. 746 Preston v. Collett, 20 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 228 Price v. Lovett, 20 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 270... Pugh v. Vaughan, 12 Beav. 517 Reeves v. Baker, 20 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 203. Vale of Neath and South Wales 60 .... 69 Lait v. Bailey, 2 Rob. 150. 70 70 Christian, In the goods of, 2 Rob. 110 70 71 73 71 ...... 70 69 71 68 Milligan, In the goods of, 2 Rob. 108 73 70 72 72 69 73 72 73 73 VOL. XV. NO. XXVIII. H Digest of Cases. COMMON LAW. Comprising the Common Law Cases (not previously inserted) in the following 5 Exchequer Reports, part 3. 15 Queen's Bench Reports, part 2 8 Common Bench, part 4. Reports : 7 Queen's Bench Practice, part 2. 20 Law Journal (N. S.), parts 8, 9. ACCEPTANCE OF GOODS WITHIN STATUTE OF FRAUDS.-1. W., living at Hereford, ordered goods (at a price above 101.) of A., living at Bristol, and directed that they should be sent by the Hereford sloop to Hereford. They were sent accordingly; and a letter of advice was also sent to W., with an invoice, stating the credit to be three months. On their arrival at Hereford they were placed in the warehouse of the owner of the sloop, where W. saw them; and he then said to the warehouseman that he would not take them, but he made no communication to A. till the end of five months, when he repudiated the goods. In an action by A. against W. for the price :-Held, that the judge ought not to have told the jury that there was no acceptance and actual receipt under the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 17, but should have left them to find, upon these facts, whether or not there had been such acceptance and actual receipt. Bushell v. Wheeler, 15 Q. B. 442. 2. Purchaser remaining at liberty to refuse them, if found inferior to sample.-The acceptance and actual receipt of goods, which makes a written memorandum unnecessary under sect. 17 of stat. 29 Car. 2, c. 3, are not such an acceptance and receipt as will preclude the purchaser from questioning the quantity or quality of the goods, or in any way disputing the fact of the performance of the contract by the vendor. The effect of such statutory acceptance and receipt is merely to dispense with the necessity of a written memorandum of the contract. Defendant purchased wheat of plaintiff by sample, and directed that the bulk should be delivered on the next morning to a carrier named by himself, who was to convey it to the market town of W., and defendant himself took the sample away with him. On the following morning the bulk was delivered to the carrier, and the I VOL. XV. NO. XXIX,-DIG. |