Cook v. Mann

Elbert, O. J.

Counsel for the plaintiff in error do not question the bona fieles of the sale by Haywood to Mann. They charge no fraud in fact, but fraud in law.

The contention is that there was no such delivery to Mann of the goods sold, and no such “actual and continued change of possession,” as are required by the statute of frauds. Section 14 of the statute provides that “every sale made by a vendor of goods and chattels in his possession or under his control, and every assignment of goods and chattels, unless the same be accompanied by an immediate delivery, and be followed by- an actual…