wm.Ls, Fame at co. ·v. 0n12s0N RY. & NAV. oo. 53
sieipment of wheat, but against his general account; and that the money
of the plaintiffs that went to pay the drafts that accompanied and were
annexed to the carrier’s receipts for the wheat in controversy, and which
was advanced upon the security of those receipts, was properly credited
by Jones to the general account of Mills & Co., which still left a small
balance, due for the 190,000 bushels,-from all of which the deduction
is attempted to be drawn that the wheat in controversy was never sold
by Jones to Mills &Co., and that neither that firm nor the plaintiffs ever
acquired any property or interest in it. I
Although Jones, in his testimony, and his counsel, in their argument,
frequently speak of a contract between Jones and Mills & Co., by which
he agreed to sell them 190,000 bushels of wheat, the case clearly shows
‘ that no such contract was ever made. t There were a series of contracts
made between the parties for the sale by Jones to Mills & Co. of wheat,
between August, 1885, and the eleventh of January, 1886, which, up
to and including the last-mentioned day, aggregated 190,000 bushels.
In no instance, however, was the sale consummated, as is argued by coun- »
sel for Jones, when the wheat was delivered to the carrier, but only
when the draft that was drawn against the wheat was paid. Whether
the property passes to the vendee upon delivery to the carrier depends
upon the circumstances of the particular case. It never does when the
vendor manifests the intention to retain the jus dtspmtendi. In respect
to the sales in question, that intention was clearly manifested by the fact
that the vendor attached the carrier’s receipts to the drafts, and deposited
them with bankers who discounted the drafts; and this, as he himself
testified, was purposely done “f0r his own sez:umz)ty," and because he
"wanted to know that they [Mills & Co.] would not get the receipts un-
til they had paid the drafts." See Benj. Sales, (4th Ed.) §§ 381-399,
and authorities there cited.
In view of these facts, no importance can be attached to the further
statement of Jones that he did not draw against any specific shipment,
but against his general account. He drew against the wheat in contro-
versy, and attachedto the drafts the shipping receipts therefor, in pre-
cisely the same way that he did in respect to the wheat shipped prior to
January 11th; the evident purpose, and, indeed, the admitted purpose,—
since it was done "for his own security,"——being to retain the ownership
of the wheat until payment of the draft against it. It is not pretended
that any of the wheat was shipped to Mills & Co. on commission; for l
Jones himself testified: "I did not intend to send them any I did not
A sell them." I can discover no distinction in the dealings of the parties
between the shipments made prior and those made subsequent to Janu-
_ ary 11, 1886. Nor do   see how the statement that the wheat in excess
of 190,000 bushels wasshipped through the mistake of the clerk "in
running up figures," can be reconciled with the undoubted fact that
there never was a contract for 190,000 bushels, but a series of contracts,
made b y an offer on J ones’ part to furnish a certain number of bushels,
and an acceptance on the part of Mills & Co. to take the number men-
tioned at a given price; nor with the further fact that on the sixteenth of ‘