The general rule of the English law47 and of many of the United States 48 denies an action for the price unless the property has passed, and the reason for the rule is plain. As the seller still is owner of the goods, he ought not to be given also the price for them. His damage is the difference in value between what he now has, namely, the goods, and what he would have had if the defendant had not broken his contract, namely, the price. Nevertheless, a large number of States do not follow the English law in this matter. If the reason why the property in the goods has not passed to the buyer is because the buyer wrongfully refused to take title when offered to him, according to the weight of authority, perhaps, in this country, the seller may recover the full purchase price.49 The enactment of the Uniform

47 Atkinson v. Bell, 8 B. A C. 277. See also Elliott v. Pybus, 10 Bing. 512. 48 See infra, Sec.1360. 49 Habeler v. Rogers, 131 Fed. 43, 45, 65 C. C. A. 281; Kinkead v. Lynch, 132 Fed. 692; Kawin v. American Colortype Co., 243 Fed. 317, 156 C. C. A. 97; Magnes v. Sioux City Seed Co., 14 Colo. App. 219, 59 Fslc. 879; Leeper v. Schroeder, 24 Colo. App. 164, 132 Pac. 701; Darby v. Hall, 3 Pennew. (Del.) 25; Robson 9. Hale, 139 Ga. 753, 78 S. E. 177; Ames v. Moir, 130 111. 582, 22 N. E. 535; Trunkey v. Hedstrom, 131 I1L 204, 200, 23 N. E. 587; Osgood v. Skinner, 211 111. 229, 71 N. E. 869; International Filter Co. v. Hartman, 141 111. App. 239; Dwiggins v. Clark, 94 Ind 49, 48 Am. Rep. 140; Rastetter v. Reynolds, 160 IncL 133, 66 N. E. 612; Moline Scale Co. v. Beed, 62 Iowa, 307l 3 N. W. 96, 35 Am. Hep. 272; McCormick Machine Go. v. Markert, 107 Iowa, 340, 78 N. W. 33; Fkte v. Ralston, 158 la. 411,130 N. W. 906, 61 L. R. A. (N. S.) 735; Bell v. Offutt, 10 Bush (Ky.), 632, 639; Singer Mfg. Co Cheney,

21 Ky. L. Rep. 550, 51 S. W. 813; Ozark Lumber Co. ». Chicago Lumber Co., 51 Mo. App. 555; St. Louis Range Co. v. Kline-Drummond Co., 120 Mo. App. 438, 96 S. W. 1040; Kcenig v. Truscott Mfg. Co., 155 Mo. App. 685, 135 S. W. 514; Dehner v. Miller, 166 Mo. App. 504, 148 S. W. 953; Gordon v. Noma, 49 N. H. 376; Black . River Lumber Co. v. Warner, 93 Mo. 374, 6 S. W. 210; Bement v. Smith, 15 Wend. 493; Dustan v. McAndrew, 44 N. Y. 72, 78; Atkinson v. Truesdell, 127 N. Y. 230, 27 N. E. 844; Van Brocklen v. Smeallie, 140 N. Y. 70, 35 N. E. 415; Cragin v. O'Connell, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 339, 169 N. Y. 573, 61 N. E. 1128; Gross v. Ajello, 132 N. Y. App. D. 25, 901, 116 N. Y. S. 380, 1137; Shawhan v. Van Nest, 25 Ohio St. 490, 18 Am. Rep. 313; Rhodes v. Mooney, 43 Ohio St. 421, 425, 4 N. E. 233; Haynes v. Brown, 18 Okla. 389, 89 Pac. 1124; Smith v. Wheeler, 7 Or. 49, 33 Am. Rep. 698; Daniels v. Morris, 65 Or. 289, 130 Pac. 397, 132 Pac. 958; Ballentine v. Robinson, 46 Pa. St. 177; Reynolds v. Callender, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 610; Ogburn-Dal-chau Lumber Co. v. Taylor (Tex.

Sales Act in many States has extended the seller's right in jurisdictions of the first class and limited it in those of the latter class.50