does there appear to have been any actual change of possession at all. The change was merely formal. There was nothing done to apprise the public that the relationship of McKee to the horse had in any respect been altered.
We do not question the soundness of the doctrine that whether the requirements of the statute have been complied with is often a question of fact, to be solved in the light of the character and situation of the property, the relation of the parties to each other, the inconvenience or hardship of requiring any other delivery or any further act of control than the facts disclose, the general usuages of trade, and all the attendant circumstances. The recent decision of the Pennsylvania supreme court in Renninger v. Spatz, 128 Pa. St. 524,18 Atl. Rep. 405, illustrates the scope of this doctrine that the questions of delivery and actual continued change of possession are sometimes questions of fact, although the evidence is undisputed. It appeared in that case that John H. Spatz became the purchaser of the farm of William D. Suader, and also of his personal property. It was shown that Spatz thereafter took possession of the farm, and hired Suader to work upon it, and leased the hoyse upon it to Mrs. Suader, and also leased to her the personal property bought from Mr. Suader. Renninger, a creditor of Mr. Suader, caused this personal property to be seized on execution against Suader, claiming that this property had not been delivered to Spatz. The court said: “In this case the property which was the subject of the sale was on the farm of the vendee, and intended by him for use there. It was placed in the custody of his tenant by a lease, but it was not removed from the farm. It is true that the lessee of the property was the wife of the vendor, and that they dwelt together after the sale as before; but she rented the house in which they lived, and he was a hired man on the farm, while Spatz owned and had the exclusive possession and control of it. Weare of the opinion that the learned judge did not errin refusing to hold asa matter of law that the delivery of possession was insufficient. It was for the jury to find from the evidence whether the sale was in good faith or colorable, and whether the change was all that could reasonably, be expected of the vendor, taking into view
