Stevens

delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

The defendant relies on the Statute of Frauds. To avoid this defence the plaintiffs show, that after the parol agreement for the sale of the goods, they delivered to defendant an order upon the master of the vessel for the goods. It appears that upon presenting the order, the defendant was answered that the goods were not ready to be discharged, and would not be for several days, whereupon he abandoned the contract.

It is now insisted by the plaintiffs that the delivery of an order for the goods, was such a delivery as takes the case out of the Statute of Frauds.

Several cases have been cited to show that a delivery of an order is a delivery of the goods. But it seems very certain that it is only so considered where the goods are susceptible of immediate delivery.

There are other cases, w'here no question is raised as to the validity of the contract, or the effect of the Statute of Frauds, where the point to be decided was, as to the kind of delivery which effected a change of property, or completed the execution of the contract.

In many such cases, although the goods cannot be immediately delivered, the delay is…