
    Roe against Martin.
    if the vendee tajve ^goods dor after contract of sale executed; the law implies a promise by the vendee to pay the expenses of keeping them.
    Un certiorari to a Justice’s Court. One question was, whether the evidence, in the Court below, sustained the action. It was assumpsit, by Martin against Roe, for keeping the mare of the latter. It appeared that the plaintiff agreed to exchange his mare for the defendant’s horse. The plaintiff received a delivery of the horse, and the defendant agreed to take the mare from the plaintiff’s residence, the next morning, which was not done; but she had remained with the plaintiff for a time, and had been kept by him. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
    
      N. Evertson, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      A. Dimmick, contra.
   Curia.

The contract of exchange was complete. The mare became the property of Roe. And as he suffered her to remain at Martin’s, after the time, when he was to have taken her away, the law implies an assumpsit, on his part, to pay for the keeping.

Judgment affirmed.  