Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-2/Section-V-Of-Possession-And-Delivery.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:01:25+00:00

Document:
(k) This whole subject is well illustrated in Bell's Commentaries on the Law of Scotland.
(kk) Gleason v. Sykes, 18 La. Ann. 627.
(kl) Burt v Dutcher, 34 N. Y. 493; Buffinton v. Ulen, 7 Bush, 231.
(/) 2 Kent, Com. 522; Dawes v. Cope, 4 Binn. 258; Babb v. Clemson, 10 S. & R. 419; Fletcher v. Howard, 2 Aik. 115; Bay v. Cook, 31 Ill. 336; Cullam v. Guil-lot, 18 La. Ann. 608.
Dugan v. Nichols, 125 Mass. 43; Hurd v. Cook, 75 N. Y. 454; Dyer v. Libby, 61 Me. 45; Lester v. East, 49 Ind. 588; Wilkinson v. Holiday, 33 Mich. 386; Ogg v. Shuter, L. R. 10 C. P. 159, 162. And such intention must be manifest when the bargain is made. Foster v. Ropes, 111 Mass. 10; Lingham v. Eggleston, 27 Mich. 324. - K.
1 In a few States of this country it is held that apart from any question of fraud a sale does not pass title to the purchaser without delivery as against a subsequent purchaser or attaching creditor ignorant of the sale. Fairfield Bridge Co. v. Nye, 60 Me 372; Reed v. Reed, 70 Me. 504; Lanfear v. Sumner, 17 Mass. 110; Shumway v. Rutter, 7 Pick. 56; Dempsey v. Gardner, 127 Mass. 381; Harlow v. Hall, 132 Mass.
232; Hallgarten v. Oldham, 135 Mass. 1, 8; Crawford v. Forristall, 58 N. H. 114; Morgan v. Taylor, 32 Tex. 363. But of these States, in New Hampshire, at least, delivery is not essential if the goods sold are at a distance so that delivery is impossible. Ricker v. Cross, 5 N. H. 570.
In England, and in other States of this country, the only importance of non-delivery is as evidence of fraud. If no fraud is charged or made out, a purchaser without delivery may enforce his title against a subsequent purchaser or attaching creditor who obtains possession. Blackburn on Sales, 260; Meyerstein v. Barber, L. K. 2 C. P. 38, 51; Meade v. Smith, 16 Conn. 346.
It should be noticed, however, that in many States retention of possession by the vendor is held to be not only prima facie evidence of fraud but conclusive proof, So that on the ground of fraud the subsequent purchaser or attaching creditor obtaining possession may enforce his right against the prior purchaser. But this doctrine also is contrary to the English law and the weight of authority in this country. See the following note.
1 In the following cases it was held that retention of possession by the vendor is conclusive proof of fraud. Twyne's Case, 3 Rep. 87; Edwards v. Harben, 2 T. R. 587; Paget v. Perchard, 1 Esp. 205; Grun v. Barney, 55 Cal. 254; Kelly v. Murphy, 70 Cal. 560; Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Col. 175; Finding v. Hartman, 14 Col. 596; Mead v. Noyes, 44 Conn. 487; Taylor v. Richardson, 4 Houst. 300; Smith v. Hines, 10 Fla. 258, 295: Dunning v. Mead, 90 111.376; Huschle v. Morris, 131 Ill. 587; Hickok v. Buell, 51 Ia. 655, Seavey v. Walker, 108 Ind. 78; Vanmeter v. Estill, 7s Ky. 456; Bruce v. Smith, 3 H. & J. 499; Stern v. Henley, 68 Mo. 262; Mills v. Thompson, 72 Mo. 367; Gray v. Sullivan, 10 New 416; Plaisted v Holmes, 58 N. H. 293; Crawford v. Davis, 99 Pa. 576; Stephens v. Gifford, 137 Pa. 219; Roth-child v. Rowe, 44 Vt. 389; Bowen v. Amsden, 47 Vt. 569.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.