nor can the
pur chafer
perform any
aft with re*
fpeft to the
goods, until
he receive
them.
In a diiTolu-
tion of Sillim
the ftock cannot
be applied
to the
purchafe of
any thing
from the feller
until it be
firft received
back.
defeated.— In the fame manner, alfo, it is unlawful for a purchafer,
in a Sillim fale, to perform any aft with refpeft to the goods previous
to the receipt of them; becaufe an aft with relation to the fubjeft of
a fale previous to the feizin is unlawful.— For the fame reafon, alfo,
it is unlawful for the purchafer, prior to feizin, to admit another to a
fhare in the goods, or to difpofe of them at prime coft.
If both parties agree to diffolve a cont raft of Sillim, the purchafer
is not, in that cafe, entitled to accept or purchafe any thing from the
feller in exchange for the flock he has advanced, until he has -firft received
it back complete; becaufe the prophet has faid, “ Where ye
“ diffolve a contrail o f fale upon which an advance has been made, take
“ not from him to whom ye have pa id the advance any thing except
“ that which ye have advanced to h im — and alfo, becaufe, as the
capital advanced, in this inflance, is refembling and like unto the fubjeft
of the fale, it follows that any aft with refpeft to it, previous to
feizin, is invalid.— The reafon why the capital advanced refembles the
fubjeft of the fale is, that a diffolution is equivalent to a new fale with
relation to a third perfon, (that is, to any other than the parties them-
felves,) and it is therefore neceffary that the fubjeft of the fale be extant.
Now it is impoflible that the goods contrafted to be provided
can be confidered as the fubjeft of the fale, fince they are not extant;
it is therefore neceffary to confider the price in that light; and this
confequently becomes a debt due by the feller, in the fame manner as
the goods were.
O b j e c t io n .— Since a diflolution is equivalent to a new contraft,
fimilar to the firft, it would follow that it is indifpenfable that the advanced
capital be received back by the purchafer at the meeting in
which the diffolution is determined on, in the fame manner as it is re-
quifite that it be advanced to the feller at the time of concluding the
contraft ; whereas it is otherwife.
R e p l y .— It is not.indifpenfable that this be received back at the
interview
interview of diffolution, becaufe the diffolution is not in all refpefts
fimilar to the firft contraft.
— Concerning the cafe in queftion Ziffer has given a different opinion,
for, according to him, any deed relating to the price, previous to the
feizin, is lawful:— but the reafoning above ffated is a fufficient refutation
of this opinion.
If a perfon fell a Koor of wheat by a Sillim fale; and afterwards,
when the period of delivery arrives, purchafe the fame from another,-
and then defire the purchafer to receive it from that other in difcharge
of his claim upon him; and the purchafer accordingly take poffeffion
of the fame, ftill he is not confidered to have made feizin of the fubjeft
of the Sillim fale, and confequently, if the wheat be loft or de-
ftroyed whilft in his poffeffion, the feller is refponfible for the fame.
But if the feller fhould have defired him to receive it firft on his [the
feller s] account, and afterwards on his own account, and the purchafer,
accordingly, firft meafure it out and receive it on account of
the feller, and afterwards meafure it out and receive it on his own
account, the fubjeft of the Sillim fale is in that cafe delivered, and
the purchafer becomes completely feized of the fame. The reafon of
this is, that there is here a conjunftion of two contrafts; firft, the
Sillim fale; and, fecondly, th'e fale between the feller of the Sillim fale
and the third perfon; and it is a neceffary condition that the meafure-
ment take place in both, becaufe the prophet has prohibited the fale
of wheat until the meafure both of the purchafer and the feller Ihall
have been applied to i t ; and this prohibition (as has been already explained)
evidently alludes to the conjunftion of two contrafts, fuch as
in the cafe in queftion.
O b j e c t io n .— As tht Sillim fale is. previous..to the purchafe of
wheat made by the Sillim feller, it follows that the two contrafts are
not conjoined.
R e p l y .— T h e Sillim contraft is antecedent, but the feizin of the
fubjeft of it is pofterior ;■— and the feizin here is equivalent to a fale
de novo; becaufe, although the fubjeft of the Sillim fale was a debt
Y y y 2 incumbent
An article
fubfequently
purchafed,
andmadeover
in fulfilment
of a-S///«»fale,
is not held to
be delivered,
unlefs the
purchafer receive
it firft
on behalf of
the feller,
and then
make feizin
of it on bit
own account,
by two
diftind mea-
furements.