BIRD, V. C.
Petition by Fitzpatrick & Co. to require the receiver of the Elmer Glass Manufacturing Company to deliver to them certain glass alleged to have been purchased before it went into insolvency.
Mr. Wescott and 67. A. Vroom, for petitioners. M. P. Grey, for receiver.
BIRD, V. C. The defendant is an insolvent corporation, and to wind up its affairs a receiver has been appointed. Fitzpatrick & Co. came in by their petition, and allege that they purchased certain glass of the defendant, before it went into the hands of the receiver, which has not all been delivered, and ask the court to direct the receiver to deliver it. Counsel for receiver admits that the court should not compel the parties to settle their rights at law, at great expense and delay, in case it is clear that there was an executed contract, i. e., that the title to the goods had passed, and that nothing remained to be done but to deliver or ship them. However, counsel urges that the contract was simply executory. For this he relies upon a letter or order handed to the agent of the company at the time he sold the goods, upon which he wrote, "Accepted," and signed the name of the company. The letter is in these words, so far as material: "Messrs. Elmer Glass Mfg. Co.—GENTLEMEN: We hand you herewith our check for $500.00 on acc. of glass to be shipped to balance this amount, and, in consideration of this advance of money, they agree to sell us at the following rates. * * * Yours, truly, J. FITZPATRICK & Co. Accepted. ELMER GLASS MFG. CO., D. LOUIS IRETON." At the time of the agreement of sale, and of the delivery of this paper, the agent also delivered a printed stock list of the goods sold, and which were then all manufactured, and capable of complete identification by such stock list. The proof is full that the goods referred to on such list were the goods offered for sale, and were bargained for by the petitioners, and for which they paid their money. Nothing remained to be done but to ship the goods according to the directions of the purchasers. Nothing more was necessary to pass title. Hurff v. Hires, 40 N. J. Law, 581; 1 Benj. Sales, (Corbin,) p. 4, § 3; Id. p. 321, §§ 308, 329. In the case I am dealing with, the specific goods intended to pass by the sale were in existence, and, in such case, "the parties are taken to contemplate an immediate bargain and sale," unless there be some condition expressed, or something remains to be done by the seller to put the goods into a deliverable shape. Blackb. Sales, pt. 2, c. 1, *123; 2 Add. Cont. (Amer. Law Ser.) *927, bottom p. 444; Id. *932, bottom p. 452. I will advise that the receiver deliver the goods to the petitioners.