IN SEARCH OF A HORSE. 311 



This position is strongly illustrated in the follow- 

 ing case : — 



Coltherd v. Puncheon, 2 Dowling and Ryland. — 

 " Proof that a horse is a good draiver only, will not 

 satisfy a warranty that he is a good drmuer and 

 'pulls quietly in harness.'' 



"It is quite clear," said the court, " in this case, 

 that these are convertible terms, because no horse 

 can be said to be a good drawer if he will not pull 

 quietly in harness, and therefore proof that he is 

 merely a good puller will not satisfy the warranty : 

 the word good^ must mean good in all particulars." 



This case decides that on the part of the dealer he 

 will be held strictly to his engagement ; the follow- 

 ing cases will equally prove that on the part of the 

 buyer, he will not be allowed to interpret the war- 

 ranty beyond its fair meaning. 



In Geddes v. Pennington, 5 Dow. 159, the war- 

 ranty was that the horse was thoroughly broke for 

 gig or saddle, and so it was proved ; but the pur- 

 chaser being ^unskillful in driving, he could not re- 

 pudiate the contract for faults that in more skillful 

 hands, would not have been displayed ; there ap- 

 pears, however, on the case, reason to infer, that the 



