These two misapprehensions of Lord Campbell, for as such they must be regarded, make the case an unsatisfactory one. It has, however, settled the law in England.97 and the doctrine for which it stands has been adopted in Canada,98 and in theUnited States, either by dictum or decision, both in the Federal courts99

95He adds the case of Bowdell v. Pareons, 10 East, 350, as establishing the proposition that "if a man contracts to sell and deliver specific goods on a future day, and before the day he sells and delivers them to another, he is immediately liable to an action at the suit of the person with whom he first contracted to sell and deliver them."In fact, the contract in that case was to deliver upon request and in the courts of a majority of the States in which the question has arisen.1

96Infra, Sec.1319.

97Frost v. Knight, L. R. 7 Ex. 1ll; Johnstone v. Milling, 16 Q. B. D. 460; Synge v. Synge (C. A.), [1894] 1 Q. B. 466; Roth v. Taysen, 73 L. T. 628. See also Danube, etc., Go. v. Xenos, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 825; Avery v. Bowden, 5 E. & B. 714; Reid v. Hoskins, 6 E. A B. 953; Roper v. Johnson, L. R. 8 C. P. 167; Brown v. Muller, L. R. 7 Ex. 319; Re South African Trust Co., 74 L. T. 769.

98Dalrymple v. Scott, 19 Ont. App. 477, 483; Ontario Lantern Co. v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 27 Ont. App. 346;

Cromwell v. Morris, 34 Dom. L. R. 305; Gilbert v. Campbell, 1 Hannay (N. Brunswick), 474.

99Roehm v. Horst, 178 U. S. 1, 44 L. Ed. 953, 20 Sup. Ct. 780, affirming 84 Fed. 565; Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Assoc., 240 U. S. 581, 60 L. Ed. 811, 36 Sup. Ct. 412; Ex parte Pollard, 2 Lowell, 411; Grau v. McVicker, 8 Bliss. 13; Dingley v. Oler, 11 Fed. 372; Foss, etc., Co. v. Bullock, 59 Fed. 83, 87, 8 C. C. A. 14; Marks v. Van Eeghen, 85 Fed. 853, 30 C. C. A. 208, Equitable Trust Co. v. Western Pac. R., 244 Fed. 485.

Clark v. National Benefit Co., 67 Fed. 222, must be regarded as overruled. The Supreme Court long remained apparently undecided. Cleveland Rolling Mill v. Rhodes, 121 U. S. 255, 264, 30 L. Ed. 920, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 882; Pierce v. Tennessee. etc. R. Co., 173 U. S. 1, 12, 43 L. Ed-591, 19 Sup. Ct. 335. See also Ed. ward Hines Lumber Co. v. Alley, 73 Fed. 603, 19 C. C. A. 599.

1 Veitch v. V. B. Atkins Grocery Co., 5 Ala. App. 444, 50 So. 746; Jebeles, etc., Confectionery Co. v. Stephenson, 6 Ala. App. 103, 60 So. 437; Wendt v. Ismert-Hincke Milling Co.,

107 Ark. 106, 154 S. W. 194; Wolf v. Marsh, 54 Cal. 228; Fresno etc., Co. v. Dunbar, 80 Cal. 530, 22 Pac. 275; Poirier v. Gravel, 88 Cal. 79, 25 Pac. 962; Remy v. Olds, 88 Cal. 537, 26 Pac. 355; Garberino v. Roberts, 109 Cal. 125, 128, 41 Pac. 857; Home Pattern Co. v. Mertz Co., 86 Conn. 494, 86 Atl. 19; Churchill Grain, etc., Co. v. Newton, 88 Conn. 130, 89 Atl. 1121; Landvoight v. Paul, 27 Diet. Col. App. 423; Thompson v. Kyle, 39 Fla. 582, 23 So. 12; Ford v. Law-son, 133 Ga. 237, 65 S. E. 444; Rob-son v. Hale, 139 Ga. 753, 78 S. E. 177; Fox v. Kitton, 19 I11. 519; Follansbee v. Adams, 86 I11. 13; Kadish v. Young,

108 I11. 170, 48 Am. Rep. 548; Bal-lance v. Vanuxem, 191 I11. 319, 61 N. E. 85; Engesette v. McGilvray, 63 I11. App. 461; Kurtz v. Frank, 76 Ind. 594, 40 Am. Rep. 275; Adams v. Byerly, 123 Ind. 368, 24 N. E. 130; Indiana Life Endowment Co. v. Reed, 54 Ind. App. 450, 103 N. E. 77; Crab-tree v. Messersmith, 19 Iowa, 179; Holloway v. Griffith, 32 Iowa, 409; 7 Am. Rep. 208; McCormick v. Basal, 46 Iowa 235; Quarton v. American Law Book Co., 143 la. 517, 529, 121 N. W. 1009, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1; Sprague v. Iowa Merc. Co., (la.) 172 N. W. 637; Platt v. Brand, 26 Mich. 173; Sheahan v. Barry, 27 Mich. 217; Kalkhoff v. Nelson, 60 Minn. 284, 287, 62 N. W. 332; McGuire v. Neils Lumber Co., 97 Minn. 293,

107 N. W. 130; Bignall, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Pierce, etc., Co., 59 Mo. App. 673; Claes, etc., Mfg. Co. v. McCord, 65 Mo. App. 507; Vickers v. Electrosone Co., 67 N. J. L. 665, 52 Atl. 467; O'Neill v. Supreme Council A. L. of H. 70 N. J. L. 410, 57 Atl. 463; Samuel Super, 85 N. J. L. 101, 88 Atl. 954; Burtis v. Thompson, 42 N. Y. 246; Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 19 Am. Rep. 285; Ferris v. Spooner, 102 N. Y. 16, 5 N. E. 773; Nichols v. Scranton. etc., Co., 137 N. Y. 471, 33 N. E. 561; Stokes v. Mackay, 147 N. Y. 223, 41 N. E. 496; Union Ins. Co. v. Central Trust Co., 157 N. Y. 633, 643, 52 N. E. 671, 44 L. R. A. 227; Hicks v. British Am. Assur. Co., 162 N. Y. 284, 56 N. E. 743, 48 L. R. A. 424; Langan v. Supreme Council A. L. of H., 174 N. Y. 266, 66 N. E. 932; Seymour v. Warren, 114 N. Y. App. D. 813, 100 N. Y. S. 267, affd. 190 N. Y. 512, 83 N. E. 1131; Wester v. Casein Co., 206 N. Y. 506, 100 N. E. 488; Rubber Trading Co. v. Manhattan Rubber Mfg. Co., 221 N. Y. 120, 116 N. E. 789; Matthews v. Matthews, 62 Hun, 110, 16 N. Y. S. 621 (cf. Shaw v. Republic L. Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 286, 293; Benecke v. Hæbler, 38 N. Y. App. D. 344, 58 N. Y. S. 16, affd. without opinion 166 N. Y. 631, 60 N. E. 1107); Sch-mitt v. Schnell, 14 Ohio C. C. 153; Diem v. Koblitc, 49 Ohio St. 41, 29 N. E. 1124, 34 Am. St. Rep. 531; Stark v. Duvall, 7 Okl. 213, 54 Pac. 453; J. K. Armsby Co. v. Grays Harbor Comm. Co., 62 Oreg. 173, 123 Pac. 32; Zuck v. McClure, 98 Pa. 541; Hocking v. Hamilton, 158 Pa. 107, 27 Atl. 836; Echard Coal & Coke Co. v. Mudge, 234 Pa. 86, 82 Atl. 1110; Mountjoy v. Metsger, 9 Phil. 10; Ault v. Dustin, 100 Term. 366, 45 S. W. 981; Brown v. Odill, 104 Term. 250, 56 S. W. 840, 52 L. R. A. 660; Kilgore v. Northwest Texas, etc., Assn., 90 Tex. 139, 37 S. W. 598; Texaa Seed & Floral Co. v. Chicago Set & Seed Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 187 S. W.

There are strong opinions to the contrary,2 however, and in many States the question is still undecided.3

747; Gibson v. Wheldon, 82 Vt. 175, 72 Atl. 909; Burke v. Shaver, 92 Va. 345, 23 S. E. 749; Lee v. Mutual, etc., Asboc, 97 Va. 160,33 S. E. 556; Mutual etc., life Assoc, v. Taylor, 99 Va. 206,

37 S. E. 854; Davis v. Grand Rapids, etc, Co., 41 W. Va. 717, 24 S. E. 630; Chapman p. Belts Co., 48 W. Va. 1, 35 S. E. 1013; Bare v. Victoria Coal Co., 73 W. Va. 632, 80 S. E. 941; Lewis v. West Virginia Pulp etc., Co., 76 W. Va. 103, 84 8. E. 1063; Davidor p. Bradford, 129 Wis. 524, 109 N. W. 576. See also Wells v. Hartford Manilla Co., 76 Conn. 27, 55 Atl. 599; Trammel! v. Vaughan, 158 Mo. 214, 59 3. W. 79, 51 L. R. A. 854; Vanflegrift r. Cowles Engineering Co., 161 N. V. 435, 55 N. E. 941, 48 L. R. A. 685.

2 Pittman v. Pittman, 110 Ky. 306, 61 S. W. 461; South Gardner Lumber Co. v. Bradstreet, 97 Me. 165, 53 Atl. 1110 (but see Listman Mill Co. v. Dufresne, 111 Ma 104, 88 Atl. 354); Martin v. Meles, 179 Mass. 114, 60 N. E. 397; Porter v. American Legion, 183 Mass. 326, 67 X. E. 238; Carstens v. McDonald,

38 Neb. 858, 57 N. W. 757; King v. Waterman, 55 Neb. 324, 75 N. W. 830; Parker v. Pettit, 43 N. J. L. 512, 517 (overruled); Stanford v. McGill, 6 N. Dak. 536, 72 N. W. 938, 38 L R. A. 760; Markowitz v. Greenwall Co. (Tex. CSv. App.), 75 S. W. 74, 317; Turner Cummings Hardwood Co. v. Phillip A. Ryan Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 201 S. W. 431. See also Warden v. Hinds, 163 Fed. 201, 90 C. C. A. 449; Perkins v. Frazer, 107 La. 390, 31 So. 773.

3The question is referred to but expressly left open in Day v. Connecticut, etc., Co., 45 Conn. 480,494,29 Am. Rep. 693 (but see later Connecticut decisions in n. 1); Sullivan v. McMillan, 26 Fla. 543, 8 So. 450 (but see Thompson v. Kyle, 39 Fla. 582, 23 So. 12, 63 Am. St. Rep. 193); Maltby v. Eisenhauer, 17 Kans. 308, 311; Dugan v. Anderson, 36 Md. 567, 11 Amer. Rep. 509; Pinckney v. Dambmann, 72 Md. 173, 182, 19 Atl. 450 (but see Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294, 45 Atl. 459, 47 L. R. A. 385).

In Collins v. Snow, 218 Mass. 542, 106 N. E. 148, 149, the court adverted to a distinction between legal and equitable procedure.

"The defendant's last contention is that under the doctrine of Daniels v. Newton, 114 Mass. 530, 19 Am. Dec. 384, the decree was wrong* in enforcing the plaintiff's half of the instalments which fell due after the date of the filing of the bill, to wit, September 28, 1908. But Daniels v. Newton was an action at law. In an action at law relief cannot be given founded on facts happening subsequent to the date of the writ. In equity the rule is otherwise. In equity rights accruing to the plaintiff after the filing of the bill which grow out of the matters on which the bill is founded may be made the subject of a supplemental bill. Saunders v. Frost, 5 Pick. 275, 276; Jaques v. Hall, 3 Gray, 194. See also, in this connection, Bauer v. International Waste Co., 201 Mass. 197, 87 N. E. 637. Indeed unless the original bill is dismissed that is the only way in which they can be enforced. Saunders v. Frost, 5 Pick. 275. By force of Equity Rule 25 all facts which at common law were the subject of a supplemental bill now can be pleaded by way of an amendment to the original bill."