case atkins against herwick and other a from Mr Pagitt a a delivery of good to  a to the use of b upon a precedent consideration vest the property of the good  in b S c fort S c Mod S c stram Cowp trover by the plaintiff as assignee of  commissioner of bankrupt the case be the defendant be mercer and partner in  the habit of sell good to crisp and qualm who be the bankrupt on the  seventeenth of April the defendant sell to and send into the country by the  order of crisp and qualm a parcel of good to the value of one hundred and  fiftyone pound and crisp and qualm give credit in their book they be before  indebt to the defendant on the eighteenth of may follow crisp and qualm  without the order or the knowledge of the defendant send the same good to  Penhalls for the use of the defendant on the nine of June the commission issue  and the good be assign to the plaintiff the defendant receive not the letter  of advice of the delivery of the good to Penhall for their use until the  thirteenth of June and then they signify their consent to accept the good  modern report er p modern report the question be whether the plaintiff be well  entitle to those good as assignee of the commission Mr reeves by the sale on  the seventeenth of April the property of the good be well transfer to the  bankrupt if anything be state to divest the plaintiff it be that on the  eighteenth of may crisp and qualm deliver a parcel of good it do not appear  whether the same that be sell in April to they to Penhall for the use of the  defendant that delivery without the defendant order divest no property out of  the bankrupt for the defendant be not oblige to accept the same and before  acceptance the bankrupt may have countermand the delivery the letter be not  until two day after the act of bankruptcy so a private delivery by the statute  all the good of the bankrupt at the time of the act of bankruptcy be saleable  by the commissioner to the creditor equal this do not appear to be a contract  to satisfy any debt for the letter only tell they of the delivery to Penhall  for their use which they see their circumstance to be decline do not enter in  their book which they may if they have think fit they neither deliver nor  accept in satisfaction but without any consideration so that it be fraudulent  against the other creditor Mod Pratt chief justice it be without consideration  be not fraudulent but only the evidence of fraud and we can adjudge it so the  acceptance be after the commission issue of which the defendant must take  notice darnel contra the delivery before they become bankrupt be a alteration  of the property and a interest be vest in the beneficiary and trust not  countermandable by the deliverer it appear to be a satisfaction as plain as  may be dyer Leon cro James the parcel of good send may go to satisfy for good  before send to crisp and qualm style Yelv they do not for that reason enter  they in their book but deliver the good to Penhall for their use and in June  follow a commission of bankruptcy issue out and crisp and qualm be find  bankrupt their good and chattel be assign to the plaintiff the defendant  receive not the letter till the thirteenth of June nor have they before any  notice of the delivery to Penhall as soon as they can notify their consent to  take the good back again they do and never refuse to accept they there be a  precedent debt the delivery must be adjudge in satisfaction of that debt  reeves in reply if by way of accord and satisfaction nothing vest until the  accord be execute which be not until acceptance before which the commission be  award the case only prove that delivery to a for the use of b without  consideration be countermandable nor can this delivery be plead by b in bar of  the debt Pratt chief justice if the property be not alter until acceptance the  act of bankruptcy may prevent it as to the consideration modern report I think  it appear to be in satisfaction of the debt though act subsequent of  beneficiary and trust may prevent it it vest prima fancy in he and if so it be  a absolute alteration of the property after acceptance and not in the power of  either party to alter the contract powys justice be of the same opinion Eyre  justice the question be only if divest by the redelivery to Penhall we be not  to intend any fraud in this case these be good deliver on a consideration and  all the book agree that if good be deliver on a consideration to a three  person they vest in a second in dyer the judge differ only as to the  countermand all hold it good on the consideration Yelv cro debt lie for the  money or trover for the good against the party raze Bulst the property of  money or good be alter upon delivery to a three person   b say it vest by the  gift and that there be no necessity to have a agreement fortescue justice how  can these good be divest a bailment general divest no property without say to  what use zouch case blow that a bailee be not to answer for they have be hold  in this court because it be a act of kindness here be a bailment to a use but  to consider it as a sale or contract a contract execute can be defeat  otherwise if executory if it enures as a gift it will be fraudulent in which  case two refuse no property divest there must be actor against actor and a  price agree on for send good without that alter no property this case go under  a notion of payment and satisfaction or delivery modern report er p of good on  consideration but certain be may have disarm and so discharge that  satisfaction per curian the defendant have the title to these good a see note  to S c Mod and the case of barn v Freeland term Rep a