IN SEARCH OF A HORSE. 301 



Gurney relied on Williamson and Allison, 2 East, 

 446, and Dobell v. Stevens, 5 D. and R. 490 ; but 

 Mr. J. Bayley held on the motion for a rule 7iisi, 

 that " whatever a person represents at the time of a 

 sale is a warranty." 



I must express a respectful doubt whether this 

 dictum does not go too far. 



There is a strong case on the point in 3 M. and 

 R., 2: it is the. case of Cave v. Coleridge, where it 

 was held that a " verbal representation of the seller 

 to the buyer in the course of the dealing, that ' he 

 may depend upon it the horse is perfectly quiet and 

 free from vice,' amounts to a warranty." 



I quote the following, case, because thougli the cir- 

 cumstances of it, as it is reported, scarcely amount to 

 fraudulent representation, yet Chief Justice Best lays 

 down the law, very distinctly, that the representation 

 must be known to be wrong. 



Salmon v. Ward, 2 Carr. and P. 211. — ^' In an 

 action on the warranty of a horse, letters passing be- 

 tween the plaintiff and defendant, in which the plain- 

 tiff writes, ' You well remember that you represented 

 the horse to me as five-year old, &c. to which the de- 

 fendant answers, ' The horse is as I represented it,' 

 26* 



