References: [1826] EngR 977, (1826) 5 B & C 628, (1826) 108 ER 234
Links: Commonlii
Where a contract was made between A. and B., whereby A., having a quantity of apples, agreed to sell his cyder to B. at a certain price per hogshead, to be delivered at T. at a future time, and to lend such pipes as he had for the use of the cyder, to be manufactured on his, A.’s premises, and to be paid for before it was removed, and A, in pursuance, delivered a quantity of juice expressed from’the apples to a servant hired by B. to manufacture the cyder on A.’s premises, and before the cyder was completely manufactured, it was seized by the Excise-officers, because the place where it was deposited had not been entered, and was condemned in the Exchequer as B.’s property, together with the casks, and in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, brought by A. against B., it appeared that the word cyder, at the place where the contract was made, meant the juice of the apples as soon as it was expressed : it was thereupon held, that the contract must be construed to have been for the sale of cyder in that sense of the word, and that the property passed to B. as soon as the apple juice was delivered to his servant. Secondly, that it was B.’s duty to enter t,he premises, and as through his default it became impossible for A. to deliver the goods at T., the failure to do so did not bar his action. Thirdly, that A. might recover in this action the price of the casks lent to the defendant.
This case cites:
- See Also – Studdy -v- Sanders and others ([1823] 2 D and R 347)
Legal professional privilege. . .
