Star.
London, England, 1822-04-16 00:00:00

?ATM V. IIOTE.

This was an action of trovvr brought by the plain-
.iff, who is a corn factor, to recover the value of 150
quarters cf barley, converted by the defendant to his.
own use. It appeared that Thomas Hope, the bro-
ther of the defendant, in November, 1820, contracted
with the plaintiff for the purchase of 162 quarters of
barley, and obtained an order for the delivery on
board his vessel. At this time the defendant had ac-
cepted bills for his accommodation to the amount of
nearly I'2loo, which had not then become due. On'
the day after the purchase, the defendant sold the
barley to his brother, who immediately, and ont of
the u,nal course of proceedings, procured it to be de-
Evered to hi, servants. It was sworn by the son of
the defenlaLt, th:tt his father bought the barley, al-
lowing his brother a pr.,fit of 6.1. per quarter, after
observing that it was exceedingly cheap, and express-
ing his regret that he had not himself contracted for
it with .the plaintiff ; but it was admitted that he
pi ice was set against those of the acceptances become
ing dac for which the defendant was compelled ti:s
prcvide. Although Mr. George Hope, the defendant,
had dealt with his brother for very little coin in the
preceding year, be now, in one month, bought of him
a large quantity, which bad previously been par
chased from several dealers. At this time rumours
were afloat in the Corn-market respecting the insol-
vency of Mr. Thomas Hope, which came to the-ears
of the plaintiff, who applied to him for an order for
the re-delivery of the barley, which he gave. On the
16th of December, the defendant took a lodging for
his brother at Pentonville, in the feigned name of
Harris, where he remained a week in concealment to
avoid his creditors, and a commission was afterwards
issued against him, on which. he was declared a bank-
: apt. The plaintiff having demanded the barley
without success, now sought to recover its value from
the defendant, contending that, under the circum
stances, he had a tight to stop it in iransitu ; and that,
even supposing he had no such right, the bankrupt
invested him with it by the order for its re-delivery,
because there never was a bonafide sale of the barley
to the defendant.

The Lone, CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that in which-
ever view they regarded the plaintiff's case, the real
question at issue WAS the same—whether, at the time
of the sale to the defendant, he was aware of the in-
solvency of his brother, and sought to secure himself
by a. reala,f:de transaction at the expense'of the plain-
tiff. The law permitted a vender; before the deli:.
very of goods was complete, to . stop them in their
passage, on information Of the insolvency of the pur-
chaser, unless in the meantinie they were Lona fide
sold to a. third person. In this case it would not be
necessary to inquire whether the delivery was or was
not complete in law, because, even supposing the de-
livery were, if there had been no bona fide sale to Mr.
George Hope, Mr. Thomas Hope had power by the
order to compel their re-delivery to the plaintiff. His
Lordship then. recapitulated the facts applicable to
the question, and left its decision to the Jury.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, which
was taken by consent for the value of the whole 162
quarters, to prevent further litigation, though only
150 were mentioned in the pleadings.