STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU. A resump tion by the seller of the possession of goods not paid for, while on their way to the ven dee and before he has acquired actual posses sion of them. Newhall v. Vargas, 15 Me. 314, 33 Am. Dec. 617.
Chancellor Kent has defined the right of stoppage in transitu to be that which the ven dor has, when he sells goods on credit to an other, of resuming the possession of the goods while they are in the possession of a carrier or middleman, in the transit to the consignee or vendee, and before they arrive into his ac tual possession, or the designation he has ap pointed for them, on his becoming bankrupt and insolvent ; 2 Kent 702.
The right of stoppage in transitu is an equitable extension recognized by the courts of common law, of the seller's lien for the price of goods of which the buyer has acquir ed the property, but not the possession. This right is paramount to any lien created by usage or by agreement between the carrier and the consignee, for a general balance of account, but not to the lien of the carrier for freight ; Potts v. R. Co., 131 Mass. 457, 41 Am. Rep. 247.
For most purposes, the possession of the carrier is considered to be that of the buyer; but by virtue of thiS right, which is an ex tension of the right of lien, the vendor may reclaim the possession before they reach the vendee, in case of the insolvency of the lat ter; Grout v. Hill, 4 Gray (Mass.) 361; 8
M. & W. 321, which gives a history of the law.
The vendor, or a consignor to whom the vendee is liable for the price ; 3 East 93 ; 6 id. 17 ; Newhall v. Vargas, 13 Me. 103, 29 Am. Dec. 489 ; or a general or special agent acting for him; 9 M. & W. 518 ; Bell v. Moss, 5 Whart (Pa.) 189 ; see Reynolds v. R. R., 43 N. H. 589; Seymour v. Newton, 105 Mass. 275 ; may ex ercise the right.
The goods sold must be unpaid for, either wholly or partially; Newhall v. Vargas, 15 Me. 314, 33 Am. Dec. 617; 2 Exch. 702. As to the rule where a note has been given, see 2 M. & W. 375; Stubbs v. Lund, 7 Mass. 453, 5 Am. Dec. 63; Donath v. Broomhead, 7 Pa. 301; where there has been a pre-existing debt ; Stanton v. Eager, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 475 ; Clark v. Mauran, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 373; Sum meril v. Elder, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 106; 1 B. & P. 563; where there are mutual credits ; 7 Dowl. & R. 126; Stanton v. Eager, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 467; where the vendee gives a draft; Ainis v. Ayres, 62 Hun 376, 16 N. Y. Supp. 905. The vendee must be insolvent; 4 Ad. & E. 332; Farrell & Co. v. R. Co., 102 N. C. 390, 9 S. E. 302, 3 L. R. A. 647, 11 Am. St. Rep. 760; Loeb v. Peters, 63 Ala. 243, 35 Am. Rep. 17; Kingman & Co. v. Denison, 84 Mich.