Lloyd & Pulliam v. Wright, Griffith & Co.

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

Under the proof, was this case within the 17th section of the statute of frauds ?

The statute requires that the purchaser should “ actually receive” the goods. And although goods are forwarded to him by a carrier by his direction, or delivered abroad on board of a ship chartered by him, still there is no actual acceptance to satisfy the act, so long as the buyer continues to have the right, either to object to the quantum at quality of the goods. Chitty on Contracts, 392 ; Story on Contracts, 381, 382, 383; Acebal vs. Levy, 10 Bingham, 376 ; How vs. Palmer, 3 B. & A., 321; Lloyd & Pulliam vs. Wright, Griffith & Co., 20 Ga. Rep. 574.

The case of Button, 3 Bos. & Pull. 582; relied on by-counsel for defendant in error was a mere question, as to what constituted a good delivery; the statute of frauds was not in the case. It consequently does not meet the question now-presented. The decision there was, that a delivery of goods; by the vendor, in behalf of the vendee, to a carrier, not named by the vendee, was a delivery to the vendee. That is, it was; a good delivery to bind the contract, but not a sufficient delivery to take the case out of the statute of frauds, which requires, that the goods should be “ actually received” to come within the meaning of the statute.

Judgment reversed.