IN SEARCH OF A HORSE. 305 



The principle of Campbell v. Fleming has been 

 since discussed and fully recognized in the case of 

 Selway v. Fogg, the only report of ^vhich that I can 

 at present find, is in the Times of the 8th of May, 

 1839. The plaintiff had contracted to do certain 

 work for £15, but the jury found that the contract 

 had been made under a fraudulent representation of 

 the extent of the work, and therefore delivered a 

 verdict for the plaintiff for £70, on the quantum 

 meruit. The defendant obtained a rule nisi for a 

 nonsuit, and on the argument Mr. Erie contended 

 that the defendant was not at liberty to set up a dis- 

 honest bargain made by his own fraud : he quoted 

 the cases of Beddell v. Levi, 1 Starkie, and Abbots v. 

 Barry, 2 Brod. and Bing., in support of his argu- 

 ment. Mr. Humphrey in reply, urged that the 

 plaintiff should have repudiated the contract as soon 

 as he discovered the fraud, but having gone on with 

 the work under it, he adopted and was bound by it. 

 On the authority of Ferguson v. Cariington, 9 B. 

 and C. the Court of Exchequer coincided in this 

 view of the case, and made the rule for a nonsuit ab- 

 solute. In the case of Brett v. Lovett, reported in 

 the Times of the 12th of June, 1839, where the ques- 



