IN SEARCH OF A HORSE. 319 



wards called by the plaintiff, he swore positively on 

 his examination in chief, that he was expressly for- 

 bidden by his master to warrant the horse, and that 

 he had not given any warranty. Lord Ellenborough, 

 though it was objected to, allowed the plaintiff to 

 contradict his own witness, and to call another to 

 prove that at the time of the sale, the servant de- 

 clared that ^'the horse was sound all over," and the 

 plaintiff thereupon recovered. So in Pickering v. 

 Busk, 15 East, 45, Mr. Justice Bayley says, " If the 

 servant of a horse-dealer, with express directions not 

 to warrant, do warrant, the master is bound." In 

 the case of Fenn v. Harrison, 3 T. E,., 757, Lord 

 Kenyon holds this doctrine, and says, that the mas- 

 ter has his remedy over against the servant. 



In Scotland (Bank) v. Watson, 1 Dow. 45, a dis- 

 tinction is made between the servant of a horse-dealer, 

 and the servant of a person not being a dealer, — in 

 the latter case the servant not having the power 

 to bind his master, if forbidden to warrant. The 

 case of Strode v. Dyson, 1 Smith, 400, also bears 

 on this point ; as well as that of Woodin v. Burford, 

 2 D. and M., 391, where an authority to a servant 

 to deliver a horse was held not to extend to war- 



