Bowe v. Ellis

Assuming the defense that the contract of sale was within the statute of frauds and void because not in writing, to have been available under the pleadings, we are nevertheless of the opinion that the judgment appealed from is unassailable, since the evidence adequately supports a finding that defendant accepted and received the chattels which he agreed to purchase, whereby the contract under present consideration was removed beyond the operation of the statute. R. S., part 2, chap. 7, title 2, § 3, subd. 2 ; Banks & Bros. (7th ed.), vol. 3, p. 2328.

To prove acceptance and receipt of ponderous and bulky articles by the purchaser, it is not required that there should have been manual delivery by the seller. Atwell v. Miller, 6 Md., 10 ; 61 Am. Dec., 294 . Virtual or constructive delivery is sufficient in any case. Bailey v. Ogdens, 3 Johns., 399 ; Castle v. Sworder, 6 Hurl. & N., 828; Sahlman v. Mills, 51 Am. Dec., 630 . All that is required is that the goods be placed within the control and under the dominion of the purchaser, Marsh v. Rouse, 44 N. Y., 643 , with intent on the part of both contracting parties to vest the right of possession as owner in the purchaser, Brand v. Focht, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec., 185 ; and proof of any act or acts from which it may be reasonably inferred that the seller has abandoned possession as owner, and that the purchaser has assumed if, is sufficient evidence of acceptance and receipt to take an oral contract of sale out of the statute of frauds. Jones v. Reynolds, 120 N.Y., 213 ; 30 St. Rep., 881 ; Gray v. Davis, 10 N.Y., 285 , without further proof that the goods were actually transferred from one place to another.

In the case before us, the parties did not specifically agree upon a place for delivery. The place where the chattels were at the time of sale must, therefore, be presumed to have been intended as the place where delivery was to be made. Benjamin on Sales, 4th Am. ed., § 682. This was the Stevens house, to which both seller and purchaser had equal access, as licensees of the owner or his agent. The chattels were, therefore, upon neutral ground, in the actual physical possession of a third person, and so remained when plaintiff requested defendant to remove them, at the same time informing defendant that they were his. This request was tantamount to a declaration that plaintiff intended to relinquish his lien for the unpaid purchase money and his dominion of the chattels as owner. Thus there was nothing to hinder defendant from taking possession if he saw fit so to do. That such was his intention was manifest by his promise to remove .the chattels, and that his intention was executed, and dominion as owner assumed by him, was further manifested by his attempted sale to Under-hill, acts which were consistent only with his claim of ownership.

Instead of being authority to the contrary, we regard Shindler v. Houston, 1 N. Y., 261 , as sustaining the position assumed by us. In the case -cited it was held that mere words indicating an intention to assume possession, uttered by the purchaser at the time of the sale, will not have the effect of receipt and acceptance of the goods, but that his subsequent acts, from which assumption of possession as owner may be inferred, are sufficient, though the goods themselves have remained in the place of their deposit' before the sale.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Pryor, J., concurs.