There is no doubt that goods may be received within the meaning of the statute while still remaining in the hands of a third person as bailee.69 It is necessary, of course, that the buyer assent to the bailment that is made for him.70 It is also essential, in order to make out actual receipt by the buyer in such case, that there should be assent on the part of the bailee to hold for the buyer.71 This assent of the bailee may be given, it would seem, either by attornment by the bailee to the buyer after the purchase, or by a negotiable promise of the bailee prior to the bargain to hold the goods for any one whom the bailor should nominate, as in a negotiable warehouse receipt, since after the negotiation of the receipt the promise of the warehouseman by its terms runs directly to the indorsee. The goods, though they may not be in the hands of a bailee at the time of the bargain, may be subsequently delivered to him. Whether they are then "received" by the buyer depends upon the terms on which the bailee receives them. If he receives them for the buyer there is receipt; 72 but, on the other hand, if the goods are still subject to the seller's orders, though in the bailee's hands, there is no actual receipt by the buyer.73
68Somers v. McLaughlin, 57 Wis. 358, 362, 15 N. W. 442. The court said: "It was fraud upon the plaintiff if the defendant obtained the possession of the mare from James [the bailee) by suppressing the real bargain. In such case, if the possession is obtained by fraud, it may be treated by the vendor as a delivery hi complete the sale at his option."
69 Daniel v. Hannah, 106 Ga. 91, 95, 31 S. E. 734. See also cases in the four following notes.
70Calvert v. Schulti, 143 Mich. 441, 106 N. W. 1123. In this case there seems to have been evidence of assent subsequent to the arrangement between the seller and the bailee, but the court held it insufficient, probably because of the doctrine referred to in the next section.
71 Bentall v. Burn, 3 B. A. C. 423; Farina v. Home, 16 M. & W. lift; Stevens v. Stewart, 3 Cal. 140; Gooch v. Holmes, 41 Me. 523; Townsend v. Hargraves, 118 Mass. 325; Bassett v. Camp, 54 Vt. 232. But see King v. Jarman, 35 Ark. 100, 37 Am. Rep. 11; Sahlman v. Mills, 3 Strob. 384, 51 Am. Dec. 630.