IN SEAKCH OF A HORSE. 269 



perfectly sound, but wliicli after being used some time, 

 turns out to be rotten : in the absence of fraud, A is 

 entitled to recover from B, what the bowsprit was ap- 

 parently worth at the time of delivery." 



Lord Ellenborough : — " A person who sells im- 

 pliedly, warrants that the thing sold shall answer the 

 purpose for which it is sold. In this case, the bow- 

 sprit was apparently good, and the plaintiff had an 

 opportunity of inspecting it ; no fraud is complained 

 of, but the bowsprit turned out to be defective on 

 cutting it up : I think the defendant is liable, on ac- 

 count of the subsequent failure. In the case cited, 

 what the plaintiff deserved was the value of the build-, 

 ing ; what he deserves here, is the apparent value of 

 the article at the time of delivery." 



It is right, however, to collate this case with a 

 previous decision of the same judge, in the case of 

 Fleming v. Simpson, which will be found in a note 

 1 Camp. 40, though the cases are clearly distin- 

 guishable. 



I will further illustrate this principle, by a simple 

 case. If a man applies to a dealer for a horse to 

 draw his carriage, avowedly trusting to the dealer's 

 judgment of his fitness, and the dealer sells him a 



