¶1The evidence in this case tended to prove, and as it stands in the record did prove, that the sale of the oxen was conditional, that is, that the title should remain in the vendor until the purchase-price *528was fully paid. The case is, therefore, brought directly within the decision in Ballard v. Burgett (40 N. Y., 314), overruling Wait v. Green (36 N. Y., 556). The decision in the former case received 'direct approval in Austin v. Dye (46 N. Y., 500), and in Humeston v. Cherry (23 Hun, 141) the doctrine of that case was declared to be the settled law of this State. (See, also, Nash v. Weaver, 23 Hun, 516.) To the same effect is the decision in Cole v. Mann (62 N. Y., 1), also in Knowlson v. Sprong (10 W. D., 81). The cases cited also further held (notably the leading one of Ballard v. Burgett) that a bona fide purchaser from the vendee obtains • no better title than had the latter. The case of Comer v. Cunningham (77 N. Y., 391) lays down no new rule of law on this subject. Indeed, the doctrine of Ballard v. Burgettthere receives entire sanction. (Page 399; see, also, 24 Alb. Law Jour., 363). On the authority of the decisions above referred to a new trial must be ■granted in this case.
¶2Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
¶3(dissenting):
¶4The latest authority of the Court of Appeals on the vexed question as to the rights of third persons, in the case of what are usually (though not accurately) called conditional sales of personal property, is the case of Comer v. Cunningham (77 N. Y., 391). It is not necessary for us to attempt to reconcile or “ distinguish ” or to examine Herrig v. Hoppock (15 N. Y., 409); Wait v. Green (36 id., 556); Ballard v. Burgett (40 id., 314); Austin v. Dye (46 id., 500). It is enough to take the latest decision above cited.
¶5There goods were sold in Georgia. By a statute of that State, which it was assumed entered into and became part of the contract, such goods “ shall not be considered as the property of the buyer or the ownership given up until the same shall be fully paid for, although it (the goods) may have been delivered into the possession of the buyer.” :'
¶6This is substantially the agreement which the plaintiff claims was made in the present case. The court held in that case that under these terms of the contract the deliverxj was conditional, but the *529sale present and absolute, and that after actual delivery a bona fide purchaser from the vendee obtained a good title.
¶7The case of Coman v. Lakey (80 N. Y., 345) does not touch the question here involved. It seems to hold that the vendor of personal property has an equitable lien for the purchase-price, except against a bona fide purchaser.
¶8Following Comer v. Cunningham we should affirm the judgment.
¶9Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event.