It sometimes happens that at the time of a bargain the goods in question are already in the possession of the buyer. Under these circumstances the goods will generally be identified and no difficulty can arise in regard to acceptance. As the buyer has possession it would seem proper to hold that he has also actual receipt of the goods. This is well settled in England 87 and the English rule has been followed in the United States.88 It will be observed, however, that these cases are obnoxious to the New York rule, to which reference has been made above,89 for the whole transaction rests in parol. Accordingly, several decisions of the lower courts in New York have held, under such circumstances, that the statute was not satisfied:90

4 Am. Rep. 721. But not if the seller refuses to let the car in which the goods are loaded go forward until the goods are paid for. Scully v. Smith, 110 N. Y. App. Div. 88, 96 N. Y. 8. 998. Delivery of identified goods to a third person other than a carrier, if in accordance with the buyer's order satisfies the statute. Munroe v. Mundy, 164 Ia. 707,146 N. W. 819.

85 Fort Worth Packing Co. v. Consumers Meat Co., 86 Md. 635, 39 Atl. 746.

86Standard Wall Paper Co. v. Towns, 72 N. H. 324,66 At). 744.

87 Edan v. Dudfield, 1 Q. B. 302.

88 Wilson v. Hotohkiss, 171 Cal. 617, 154 Pac. 1; Devine v. Warner, 76 Conn.

375, 379, 53 Atl. 782, 96 Am. St. Rep. 211, 76 Conn. 229, 56 Atl. 562; Couil-lard v. Johnson, 24 Wis. 533; Snider v. Thrall, 56 Wis. 674, 14 N. W. 814. See also Smith v. Bryan, 5 Md. 141, 59 Am. Dec. 104; Norton v. Simonds, 124 Mass. 19.

89 See Sec. 554.

90 Dorsey v. Pike, 50 Hun, 534; Fol-lett Wool Co. v. Utica Trust Co., 84 N. Y. App. Div. 151; Linde v. Huntington, 37 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 212, 75 N. Y. S. 161. In the case last cited the goods had been put into the possession of a prospective buyer for examination, and after temporary examination the buyer declined the goods; but later when the buyer offered to sell and these decisions must probably be regarded as approved by the Court of Appeals.91