There  the  vendor  actually  credited  the  agent,  and  yet  the  principal  was
held  liable.  The  general  principle  is,  that  the  law  creates  an  implied  con-
tract from  the  receipt  of  the  goods.  [Aldebson,  B.  —  Here  each  party
thought  the  husband  was  responsible.]  That  can  make  no  difference,  for  it
is  clear  that  there  could  be  no  contract  between  the  plaintiff  and  the  dead
man  ;  and  there  was  no  contract  by  the  executor  with  the  plaintiff.  There
is  a  fallacy  on  the  other  side,  in  assuming  that  there  was  a  prior  continuing
contract  between  the  husband  and  the  plaintiff,  respecting  the  supply  of
goods  to  the  wife.  An  action  for  goods  sold  and  delivered  is  not  necessarily
founded  upon  a  contract  antecedent  to  the  delivery  of  the  goods ;  it  may
be,  and  generally  is,  founded  upon  the  implied  contract  that  the  party  will
pay  the  price  or  value  of  the  goods  delivered  and  accepted  by  him ;  and
there  are  as  many  implied  contracts  as  there  are  parcels  of  goods  delivered
aud  accepted.  If  there  was  no  prior  contract  at  all  in  the  present  case
(which  it  is  clear  there  was  not),  then  the  moment'  each  parcel  of  goods
was  delivered  and  accepted,  the  law  implied  a  contract  by  the  defendant,
who  received  aud  accepted  them,  to  pay  the  price.
