Where acceptance is shown, a very liberal construction is placed on actual receipt. Receipt implies delivery, and must be with the seller's consent, and with the intention of transferring possession to the buyer as owner. The test is whether the seller has parted with his lien.39 When the goods are to be forwarded to the buyer, if they are carried by the seller's servant or agent, there is no transfer of possession while they remain in his hands;40 but if they are forwarded by a carrier designated by the buyer, an actual receipt takes place when they are delivered to him for carriage;41 and if they are forwarded by common carrier, he, in the absence of special agreement, is the agent of the buyer and the result is the same.42 The receipt of the goods by the carrier in such cases, on the other hand, is not an acceptance, such an agent having authority only to receive, and not to accept.43

33 Caulkins v. Hellman, 47 N. Y. 449. 7 Am. Rep. 461; Meehon v. Sharp, 131 Mass. 564, 24 N. E. 907; Smith v. Fisher, 59 Vt. 53, 7 Atl. 816; Garfield v. Paris, 96 U. S. 567, 24 L. Ed. 821. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 89; Cent. Dig. §§ 165-173.

34 Cases cited supra, note 28.

35 Caulkins v. Hellman, 47 N. T. 449, 7 Am. Rep. 461; Shepherd v. Pressey, 32 N. H. 49; Schmidt v. Thomas, 75 Wis. 529, 44 N. W. 771; Galvin v. Mac-Kenzie, 21 Or. 184, 27 Pac. 1039. It is sometimes said that mere words are not enough, but the cases in which such statements occur generally involve simply the proposition that they are not enough to constitute acceptance and receipt Shindler v. Houston, 1 N. Y. 261, 49 Am. Dec. 316. See Tiffany, Sales, 56. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 89; Cent. Dig. §§ 165-173.

36 Chaplin v. Rogers, 1 East 195; Phillips v. Ocmulgee Mills, 55 Ga. 633; Bacon v. Eccles, 43 Wis. 227, 238; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 70 Mich. 5S3, 38 N. W. 472; Patterson & Holden v. Sargeant, Osgood & Roundy Co., S3 Vt. 516, 77 Atl. 338, 138 Am. St. Rep. 1102. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 89; Cent. Dig. §§ 165-173.

37 KEMENSKY v. CHAPIN, 193 Mass. 500, 79 N. E. 781, 9 Ann. Cas. 1168, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 97. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 89; Cent. Dig. §§ 165-173.

38 Page v. Morgan, 15 Q. B. Div. 228; Taylor v. Smith [1893] 2 Q. B. 65. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 89; Cent. Dig. §§ 165-173.

39 Phillips v. Bristolli, 2 Barn. & C. 511; Safford v. McDonough, 120 Mass. 290; Marsh v. Rouse, 44 N. Y. 643; Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124 U. S. 38, 8 Sup. Ct 369, 31 L. Ed. 337. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 90; Cent. Dig. §§ 162-179.

The possession of the goods may be transferred, and an actual receipt take place by agreement, without physical delivery. An actual receipt takes place by agreement: (1) When the goods are in the actual possession of the seller, if he becomes bailee of the goods for the buyer;44 (2) when the goods are in the custody of the buyer, as bailee of the seller, if with the consent of the seller he ceases to hold as bailee, and holds them as owner;45 (3) when the goods are in the custody of a third person as bailee of the seller, if such third person, with the consent of the seller and the buyer, becomes bailee of the buyer;46 and (4) when the goods are not in the custody of any person, as timber at a public wharf, or logs floating in a river, and the buyer and the seller agree that the possession is transferred.47

40 Agnew v. Dumas, 64 Vt 147, 23 Atl. G34; Grey v. Cary, 9 Daly (N. Y.) 363. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 89; Cent. Dig. §§ 165-173.

41 Bullock v. Tschergi (C. C.) 4 McCrary, 184, 13 Fed. 345; Cross v. O'Don-nell, 44 N. T. 661, 4 Am. Rep. 721. See cases infra, note 43. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 90; Cent. Dig. §§ 162-119.

42Wait v. Baker, 2 Ex. 1; Wilcox Silver Plate Co. v. Green, 72 N. Y. 17; Sarbecker v. State, 65 Wis. 171, 26 N. W. 541, 56 Am. Rep. 624. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 90; Cent. Dig. §§ 162-179.

43KEMENSKY v. CHAPIN, 193 Mass. 500, 79 N. E. 781, 9 Ann. Cas. 1168, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 97; Hanson v. Armitage, 5 Barn. & Ald. 557; Hunt v. Hecht, 8 Ex. 814; Allard v. Greasert, 61 N. Y. 1, 5; Fontaine v Bush, 40 Minn. 141, 41 N. W. 465, 12 Am. St. Rep. 722. See "Frauds, Statute of,"' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 90; Cent. Dig. §§ 162-179.

44Elmore v. Stone, 1 Taunt 458; Beaumont v. Brengeri, 5 C. B. 301; Green v. Merriam, 28 Vt 801; Rodgers v. Jones, 129 Mass. 420; Webster v. Anderson, 42 Mich. 554, 4 N. W. 288, 36 Am. Rep. 452. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 90; Cent. Dig. §§ 162-179.

45Edan v. Dudfield, 1 Q. B. 306; Lillywhite v. Devereux, 15 Mees. & W. 285; Snider v. Thrall, 56 Wis. 674, 14 N. W. 814; Godkin v. Weber, 154 Mich. 207, 114 N. W. 924, 117 N. W. 628, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 498.

But the mere fact that the goods are in the possession of the purchaser at the time of the sale does not of itself constitute such a receipt and acceptance as will satisfy the statute, unless it is so agreed by the parties, or the sale is followed by acts of ownership on the part of the purchaser. J. H. Silkman Lumber Co. v. Hunholz, 132 Wis. 610, 112 N. W. 1081, 11 L. R. A. (X. S.) 1186 and note, 122 Am. St Rep. 1008, 13 Ann. Cas. 713. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 90; Cent. Dig. §§ 162-179.

46 Bentall v. Burn, B. & C. 423; Farina v. Home, 16 Mees. & W. 119;

Clark Cont.(3d Ed.) - 9