paid for them. Later R. wished W. to take back such portion of the goods as he had not yet sold and give him credit accordingly on the debt. W. agreed, and gave credit, but instructed R. to act as its agent and sell the goods on its account and remit proceeds. Held, that this was a resale and not merely a rescission of the original sale, and that as there was no delivery of possession, the sale was fraudulent as to attaching creditors of R. Whiting Mfg. Co. v. Gephart (1893), 6 Wash. 615, 34 Pac. R. 161. A stock of goods was sold to a clerk of the vendor who had been in the store in the employ of the vendor for some months. No inventory of stock was taken upon making the sale. The signs on the store were unchanged, and there was nothing to indicate a change of possession, though, upon making the sale, the vendor said to the vendee, "the goods are yours," and left the store and did not return. Held, that the sale was void, there being no immediate delivery and actual and continued change of possession. Lloyd v. Williams (1895), 6 Colo. App. 157, 40 Pac. R. 243. H. bought cattle of W. W. put them in a "stalk field" which he had bought professedly for himself, but really for H. Held, no change of possession. Harris v. Pence (1895), 93 lowa, 481, 61 N. W. R. 927. A stepfather delivered to his stepson, who had been living with him on his ranch, a lease thereof, reserving two rooms of the house thereon for his own use, and at the same time gave the stepson, for value, a bill of sale of sheep and hogs running on the ranch. The lease

was never recorded, and the parties thereto continued to live together on the ranch as before, without any change in their relations or in their possession of the chattels being manifest to the world. Held, no actual and continued change of possession. Kennedy v. Conroy (Cal., 1896), 44 Pac. R. 795. Alleged vendee of store and stock of goods did not take possession and left the same manager and clerks in charge. Vendor's name remained on the window-shades and in the newspaper advertisements, and bills were made out to vendor and paid by manager without objec tion. Sale held fraudulent as made without immediate delivery and actual change of possession. Howard v. Dwight (1896), 8 S. Dak. 398, 66 N. W. R. 935. D. purchased from A. about eleven thousand raisin trays in payment of a debt. The trays were not removed from the shed on A.'s farm where they were stored, but D. wrote his name on a large number of them and kept a man continuously at A.'s house to look after the trays. Held, no sufficient open and continuous change of possession. Byxbee v. Dewey (Cal., 1896), 47 Pac. R. 52. The only thing done at the time of the sale was to put the brother of the vendee in charge of the store. The name of the new proprietor was not placed upon the building nor was the sign of the old removed. Held, no sufficient change of possession. Revercomb v. Duker (1898), 74 Mo. App. 570.

Illustrations of sufficient delivery.-On the other hand, in Webster v. Anderson, 42 Mich. 554, 4 N. W. R. 288, 36 Am. R. 452, where a farm

hand accepted from his employer twenty hogs in payment for his services, with the understanding that they should remain on the farm with the employer's hogs until they could be sold, it was held a sufficient delivery. "It was all the delivery that could well have been made under the circumstances, without requiring Anderson (the buyer) to remove the hogs from the farm where he was employed, to some other place where they would have been less in his possession than where they were." (Contra, Hull v. Sigsworth, 48 Conn. 258, 40 Am. R. 167. See also Thompson v. Wilhite, 81 Ill. 356, both ante.) On a sale of household goods, where the seller moved out of the house in which they were, and delivered the keys to the buyer, it was held enough. Barr v. Reitz, 53 Pa. St. 256. Where two brothers lived together, and one bought a carpet for their home, but did not pay for it, and the other then went and paid for it and took a bill of sale to himself, it was held sufficient change. Evans v. Scott, 89 Pa. St. 136.

Further illustrations are the following: Plaintiff bought from M. a mare then pasturing on the land of W., five miles distant. He went to take possession of her, but W. was not at home. On his way back he met W., and arranged with him to remove the mare a few days later, and on the day specified he placed her on another ranch under an agreement with the manager thereof, who received and held her for plaintiff. Held, a sufficient compliance with the requirement of immediate delivery. Cameron v. Calberg (Cal., 1892),

31 Pac. R. 530. Plaintiff's husband sold her sixteen mares in satisfaction of a debt. The mares were pastured on the husband's lands prior to the sale, and branded with his brand. At the time of the sale they were brought to the corral, vented with the husband's brand, and then branded with the plaintiff's brand, and a bill of sale was given. They were then turned back on the range where they were before, and cared for, at season requiring care, by men hired by and paid by the plaintiff. Held, a sufficient delivery and change of possession. Asbill v. Standley (Cal., 1892), 31 Pac. R. 738. R. & Co. executed a bill of sale to plaintiffs, creditors of R. & Co., of twelve thousand bushels of charcoal in pits on the lands of R. & Co. Plaintiffs made no attempt to remove the coal, but caused, a few days later, small cards to be placed on the pits, with their name thereon; they also placed a man in charge of the pits, who remained in charge about two weeks, and then left, requesting a person on an adjoining ranch to look after the coal, and such person made occasional visits each day to the pits. Held, a sufficient change of possession. Tognini et al. v. Kyle (1882), 17 Nev. 209, 30 Pac. R. 829. During negotiations for the sale of the stock of goods the store was closed. After the consummation of the sale the store was reopened with the prior owner as salesman and manager for the new owner. All creditors of the prior owner were immediately notified, announcement of the sale was published for two weeks in the local papers, and Bradstreet's was notified of the sale. New

letter-heads were immediately procured and used, showing the new owner as proprietor. Business was conducted in the name of the new owner, and she was frequently in the store, though not engaged in selling goods. Held, a sufficient change of possession. Pollard v. Farwell (1892), 48 Mo. App. 42. The sale of seven horses to plaintiff was actually bona fide, and there was immediate delivery. Soon after the delivery the plaintiff employed a man, formerly in the employ of vendor, and put this man in charge of the horses; with six of them in a team, he and the said vendor, with a like team, did a large amount of plowing for a third person; for convenience in working while doing the plowing, one of the horses of plaintiff's team was interchanged with one of the horses of the vendor's team. Held, that this evidence supported the finding of "an actual and continued change of possession." Freeman v. Hensley, Sheriff (Cal., 1892), 30 Pac. R. 792. Buggies in a "knock-down" condition (parts in boxes and crates) were stored in warehouse. Vendor took vendee's agent to the warehouse, pointed out the goods sold, locked the warehouse and gave the key to the agent, who thereafter retained it. Held, a sufficient delivery and actual and continued change of possession, even though goods of third person were also stored in the warehouse, and such third person had been given a key and had been promised that he should have exclusive possession. Morrison v. Oium, Sheriff (1892), 3 N. Dak. 76, 54 N. W. R. 288. The lessee, B., of a dairy farm, living

elsewhere, sold his cows, fixtures and equipments of the farm to an employee, P., whom he had placed in charge of the farm. A few months later, P., being unable to pay, resold the property to B., in presence of two witnesses, but the property was bailed to P. for use for a period of eight months. Shortly afterward S. levied upon the property and sold it as the property of P. B. gave notice both before and at such sale that the property was his own. Jury found utmost good faith on part of both B. and P. Held, a sufficient delivery and continued change of possession. Bell v. McCloskey (1893), 155 Pa. St. 319, 26 Atl. R. 547.

Plaintiff bought of N. certain corn, standing in two pieces, the corn to be cribbed or thrown into piles as he might elect. He rode through both pieces, and paid $25 on one and $60 on the other. Later one piece was cut and partly shocked. Held, there had been sufficient delivery and change of possession. State ex rel. Wright v. Casteel (1892), 51 Mo. App. 143. T. Co. owned two engines in the possession of W., who held as bailee. T. Co. sold them to appellant, and both T. Co. and appellant notified W. of the sale and instructed him to hold for appellant. Held, a sufficient delivery and change of possession. Nat. Bank of Chambersburg v. Buckeye I. & B. Works (1892), 46 Ill. App. 526. Firm engaged in merchandising sold out its business to a creditor firm. Latter took possession, removed the old sign-board, put its own in place, and advertised the change, but retained one of the members of the vendor firm to act as salesman. Held,

a valid sale. Loucheim v. Seyfarth (1893), 49 Ill. App. 561. G. was indebted to his brother, the defendant, in various sums for wages, loans, etc. Defendant was in possession of G.'s store as clerk and manager. He pressed G. for payment and G. gave him a bill of sale of the stock of goods in the store in payment of the debt. Defendant immediately changed the advertisements, and advertised himself as proprietor, notified the landlord of the purchase and himself became tenant, and refused to receive goods consigned to G. Held, a sufficient delivery and change of possession. Martin v. Duncan (1893), 47 Ill. App. 84. The owner of a large pasture on which he and another pastured their horses together, and on which both lived (but in separate houses), sold that other some of his horses. Such horses remained in the pasture as before. Held, a sufficient delivery and change of possession. Traders' Nat. Bank of Ft. Worth v. Day (1894), 87 Tex. 101, 26 S. W. R. 1049. At the time of the sale the whisky was stored in a bonded warehouse, only to be removed upon surrender of the certificates and compliance with their conditions. The certificates were in the hands of pledgees, several hundred miles away. Pledgees were immediately notified of the sale and that the purchaser claimed the certificates subject to the pledgees' lien. Held, a good delivery and change of possession. Freiberg v. Steenbock (1893), 54 Minn. 509, 56 N. W. R. 175. W. was indebted to H. in the sum of about $800, and made a bill of sale to H. of a portable sawmill, horses, etc.,

for the expressed consideration of $1,000, under oral agreement that bill of sale should not be given nor possession surrendered until H.'s credit should by his further employment by W. increase W.'s indebtedness to him to the sum of $1.000, when the bill should be delivered and possession immediately given. This ar rangement was carried out, and upon the debts reaching the amount agreed upon, the bill of sale was delivered by W. to H., and H. took immediate possession and put up a plain sign on the mill, "A. Hawn, Successor to George Wright.” Held, that as there was no sale until the condition was complied with, and that as upon compliance therewith there was immediate delivery and continued change of possession, the sale was valid as against creditors subsequently attaching. Roberts v. Hawn (1894), 20 Colo. 77, 36 Pac. R. 886. W. sent C. a bill of sale of property in the possession of M. which was to be operative upon C.'s paying a note made by W. and M. and paying the bill of M. for the care of the property up to time of acceptance. After some correspondence, C. accepted the offer, paid M.'s bill and either paid or guaranteed the note, and immediately took possession. Held, that the sale dated not from the delivery of the bill of sale but from the date of acceptance of the conditions under which it was to become operative, and that there was thus immediate delivery and change of possession. Cornwall v. Mix (Idaho, 1893), 34 Pac. R. 893. C. was a baker, and had been in employ of R. for nearly a year. R. owed