Polynesian., 1861-06-15

at any time subsequent to the completion of the
sale, ever had, now have, any claim to control the
goods, such claim results entirely from the right
to enforce their lien for the price, as vendors by
retaining the possession of the goods From the
time that the goods were placed in that part of the
store rented by Mr.. Waterhouse, they were either
in his possession or in that of the vendors for
they never we're the subject of any intermediate
possession.
The claim of the plaintiffs to have the goods
now, depends upon the question whether or not the
vendors had Voluntarily and without fraud, parted
with the possession to Mr.. Waterhouse. Upon
this point, as upon the former, we are clearly of
opinion that the plaintiffs must prevail. The part
of Janion Il Green's store which was rented by Mr..
Waterhouss, must be regarded, 80 far as this con-
troversy is concerned, as his storehouse, just the
same If it had been separate building and situ-
ated upon his own land, or on that of some third
party. This cannot be doubted for a moment, es-
pecially in view of the fact, which was admitted
by the defence during the argument, that Mr.. Wa
terhouse, by the terms of his agreement, was at
liberty to that place not only for the storage of
goods purchased from Janion, Green & Co., but
also OF goods purchased from other parties.
When Mr.. Waterhouse agreed to purchase the
goods In question, and, upon inspection expressed
himself satisfied Herewith and gave his promissory
notes for the payment Of the price, the contract Of
sale was complete, passing the property in the
goods to him /; and when placed in the part Of the
store allotted to the reception of his goods these
goods must be regarded as having been delivered
into his warehouse, and the transaction amounted
in law to an absolute transfer both Of the property
and the possession, putting an end forever to the
vendors lien.
The fact that Mr.. Waterhouse appears to have
been In the habit of giving warehouse receipts for
goods purchased from Janion, Green & Co., upon
the removal of such goods from the warehouse,
n0t 0ninion tha oh of Tho von1nra
| and yendee in this case. The giving of such re-
ceipts had nothing to do with the contract of sale
or with the storing of the goods for the vendee's
in the place contemplated by the parties all Of
which was complete without the formalty of re-
| ceipts There is no rule Of law of which we are
aware, nor is any usage Of trade shown to exist,
which makes it requisite to give receipts under like
circumstances with the present. and in the absence
of an express understanding between the parties,
that the goods were not to be regarded delivered
to Waterhouse, until he gave such receipts, we can
only infer that they given o mere matter of
convenience connected with the warehouse and were
not demandabe as of right. To infer more than
this upon the facts as they appear, would be to
assume that even after he had received the goods
and paid for them, Mr.. Waterhouse was not at
liberty to remove them from one of his storehouses
to another, without giving receipt, when, on the
contrary, it must be admitted that upon the aceeI'
tanee of the promissory notes by the vendors, Mr..
| Waterhouse had an immediate right to remove tile
goods, even from their storehouse, without tender
ing receipts.
Such being our view of the case, the rights of the
parties are not affected by the vendees insolvency,
or by his failure to pay the promissory notes at
maturity.
Our decision is that the plaintiffs, as the as
sgnees of the purchaser, are entitled to the pos
session of the goods.
G. @. Harris, Esq, for plaintiffs.
JnO. Montgomery, Esq, for defendants.
Honolulu, June IL, 1861.