IN SEARCH OF A HORSE. 383 



plain that the expense of the keep is necessarily 

 thrown upon him." 



It will not fail to be noticed, that in this case, 

 the doctrine that a purchaser cannot return the 

 horse without express stipulation, as decided in the 

 case of Street v. Blay, does not appear to have been 

 considered. 



Another case upon the question of damages, is to 

 be found in Ryan and Moody, 436. 



It is the case of M'Kenzie v. Hancock. " In as- 

 sumpsit for the breach of warranty of soundness of a 

 horse, the defendant having refused to take back the 

 horse, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the keep 

 for such time ouIt/ as w^ould be required to sell the 

 horse to the best advantage." 



The time must be a reasonable time ; the judge 

 (Littledale) alluded to the general prevalence of a 

 contrary doctrine ; and as the defendant might thus 

 have his horse driven to a compulsory sale, it is ques- 

 tionable, whether it is not to the advantage of vendors, 

 that the contrary doctrine should have been still al- 

 lowed to prevail. An action for breach of warranty 

 will lie, though the horse has never been returned or 

 sold. Vide Fielder v. Starkin, and Patteshall v. 



