—and if the thing sold was wheat and the buyer mixed it with wheat of the same or an inferior grade, the seller may take from the mixture an amount equal to what he had sold; but if it was mixed with better-quality wheat, the sounder opinion is that the seller has no right of recourse in the mixture. If the wheat was ground into flour, or the garment was bleached, then, provided the value has not increased, the seller may rescind and the bankrupt takes nothing; but if the value has risen, the preponderant view is that the article is sold and the bankrupt receives from the proceeds a share proportionate to the increase in value.

If the buyer dyed the cloth with his own dye and the enhancement in value equals the cost of the dye, the seller may rescind and the bankrupt is a partner in the dye. If the increase is less, the deficit is borne by the owner of the dye; if it is greater, the more correct view is that the surplus belongs to the bankrupt.

Should the dye and the cloth both have been sold by the same seller, he may rescind with respect to both—unless their dyed value now exceeds the value of the cloth alone, in which case he forfeits the dye. Where the cloth and the dye were bought from two different vendors, then if the dyed cloth is worth no more than the undyed cloth, the owner of the dye loses his claim; if its value has risen by an amount equal to the price of the dye, they share proportionately; and if the increase exceeds the combined value of the cloth and the dye, the sounder opinion is that the bankrupt shares with them both in that excess.