Goddard v. Binney

Ames, J. Whether an agreement like that described in this report should be considered as a contract for the sale of goods, within the meaning of the statute of frauds, or a contract for labor, services and materials, and therefore not within that statute, is a question upon wliich there is a conflict of authority. According to a long course of decisions in Hew York, and in some other states of the Union, an agreement for the sale of any commodity not in existence at the time, but which the vendor is to manufacture or put in a condition to be delivered, (such as flour from wheat not yet ground, or nails to be made from iron in the vendor’s hands), is not a contract of sale within the meaning óf the statute. Crookshank v. Burrell, 18 Johns. 58. Sewall v. Fitch, 8 Cow. 215. Robertson v. Vaughn, 5 Sandf. 1. Downs v. Ross, 23 Wend. 270. Eichelberger v. M’Cauley, 5 Har. & J. 213. In England, on the other hand, the tendency of the recent decisions is to treat all contracts of such a kind intended to result in a sale, as substantially contracts for the sale of chattels; and the decision in Lee v. Griffin, 1 B. & S. 272, goes so far as to hold that a contract to make and fit a set of artificial teeth for a patient is essentially a contract for the sale of goods, and therefore is subject to the provisions of the statute. See Maberley v. Sheppard, 10 Bing. 99; Howe v. Palmer, 3 B. & Ald. 321; Baldey v. Parker, 2 B. & C. 37; Atkinson v. Bell, 8 B. & C. 277. In this Commonwealth, a rule avoiding both of these extremes was established in Mixer v. Howarth, 21 Pick. 205, and has been recognized and affirmed in repeated decisions of more recent date. The effect of these decisions we understand to be this, namely, that a contract for the sale of articles then existing, or such as the vendor in the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the general market, whether on hand at the time or not, is a contract for the sale of goods, to which the statute applies. But on the other hand, if the goods are to be manufactured especially for the purchaser, and upon his special [455] order, and not for the general market, the case is not within the statute. Spencer v. Cone, 1 Met. 283. “ The distinction,” says Chief Justice Shaw, in Lamb v. drafts, 12 Met. 353, “ we believe is now well understood. When a person stipulates for the future sale of articles, which he is habitually making, and which, at the time, are not made or finished, it is essentially a contract of sale, and not a contract for labor; otherwise, when the article is made pursuant to the agreement.” In Gardner v. Joy, 9 Met. 177, a contract to buy a certain number of boxes of candles at a fixed rate per pound, which the vendor said he would manufacture and deliver in about three months, was held to be a contract of sale and within the statute. To the same general effect are Waterman v. Meigs, 4 Cush. 497, and Clark v. Nichols, 107 Mass. 547. It is true that in “ the infinitely various shades of different contracts,” there is some practical difficulty in disposing of the questions that arise under that section of the statute. Gen. Sts. c. 105, § 5. But we see no ground for holding that there is any uncertainty in the rule itself. On the contrary, its correctness and justice are clearly implied or expressly affirmed in all of our decisions upon the subject matter. It is proper to say also that the present case is a much stronger one than Mixer v. Howarth. In this case, the carriage was not only built for the defendant, but in conformity in some respects with his directions, and at his request was marked with his initials. It was neither intended nor adapted for the general market. As we are by no means prepared to overrule the decision in that case, we must therefore hold that the statute of frauds does not apply to the contract which the plaintiff is seeking to enforce in this action. Independently of that statute, and in cases to which it does not apply, it is well settled that as between the immediate parties, property in personal chattels may pass by bargain and sale without actual delivery. If the parties have agreed upon the specific thing that is sold and the price that the buyer is to pay for it, and nothing remains to be done but that the buyer should pay the price and take the same thing, the property passes to the buyer, and with it the risk of loss by fire or any other accident. The appropriation of the chattel to the buyer is equivalent, for that purpose, to delivery by the seller. The assent of the buyer to take the specific chattel is equivalent for the same purpose to his [456] acceptance of possession. Dixon v. Yates, 5 B. & Ad. 313, 340. The property may well be in the buyer, though the right of possession, or lien for the price, is in the seller. There could'in fact be no such lien without a change of ownership. No man can be said to have a lien, in the proper sense of the term, upon his own property, and the seller’s lien can only be upon the buyer’s property. It has often been decided that assumpsit for the price of goods bargained and sold can be maintained where the goods have been selected by the buyer, and set apart for him by the seller, though not actually delivered to him, and where nothing remains to be done except that the buyer should pay the agreed price. In such a state of things the property vests in him, and with it the risk of any accident that may happen to the goods in the mean time; Noy’s Maxims, 89. 2 Kent Com. (12th ed.) 492. Bloxam v. Sanders, 4 B. & C. 941. Tarling v. Baxter, 6 B. & C. 360. Hinde v. Whitehouse, 7 East, 571. Macomber v. Parker, 13 Pick. 175, 183. Morse v. Sherman, 106 Mass. 430. In the present case, nothing remained to be done on the part of the plaintiff. The price had been agreed upon; the specific chattel had been finished according to order, set apart and appropriated for the defendant, and marked with his initials. The plaintiff had not undertaken to deliver it elsewhere than on his own premises. He gave notice that it was finished, and presented his bill to the defendant, who promised to pay it soon. He had previously requested that the carriage should not be sold, a request which substantially is equivalent to asking the plaintiff to keep it for him when finished. Without contending that these circumstances amount to a delivery and acceptance within the statute of frauds, the plaintiff may well claim that enough has been done, in a case not within that statute, to vest the general ownership in the defendant, and to cast upon him the risk of loss by fire, while the qhattel remained in the plaintiff's possession. According to the terms of the reservation, the verdict must be set aside, and Judgment entered for the plaintiff.