KELLT V. DEMING. 679 �which the property was sold, with costs of transportation added, and the actual value of the property àt the date of the replevy. The vendee had a right on payment of the cash priee and charges to receive the property and thus become the absolute owner thereof, pr to take possession as con- signee, He never paid the priee or charges, never received the property, and never claimed the same. It had been shipped to him on the terms stated, and by no act of his had plaintiff's rights been defeated. What legal complications migbt bave arisen, if he had taken possession from the car- rier, it is not necessary to discuss. No such possession was was ever obtained or claimed by, nor was any sale made hj, him in traj^tsit, and the property was still in possession of the carrier. How then could his attaching creditors acquire as against the vendor any right in the property or to the posses- sion thereof, at least without payment of the price and charges ? If they had any such right on such payment made, can they, without such payment or tender, hold the vendor to an ascertainment of the value of the property replevied, with charges added, and answer over to them for the balance ? Until the vendee had an acquired right in the property, irre- spective of the vendor, his creditors could not defeat the vend- or's demand, nor make the vendor who had reclaimed his own property responsible to them for any supposed or actual ac- cessions in value intermediate the shipment and replevy. This case is here free from ail questions as to an assignment of a bill of lading or biU drawn against the shipment. �As no special damages for detention by defendants iave been proved, the court orders judgment for the plaintiff for nominal damages and costs. ����
