86 



WHAT DISEASES CONSTITUTE UNSOUNDNESS OR VICE. 



Curby Hocks 

 not an Un- 

 soundness. 



of joints, from their extent of motion in these situations, 

 may be susceptible of injmy. A Curb is an affection of 

 this kind. It is an enlargement at the back of the hock, 

 about three or four inches below the point of the hock. 

 Any sudden action of the limb of more than usual violence 

 may produce it, and therefore Horses are found to " throw 

 out curbs" after a hardly-contested race, an extraordinary 

 leap, a severe gallop over heavy ground, or a sudden 

 check in the gallop. Young Horses are particularly 

 liable to it, and Horses that are Cowhoched, or whose hocks 

 and legs resemble those of the Cow, the hocks being turned 

 inward and the legs forming a considerable angle out- 

 wards ; for in hocks so formed the annular ligament must 

 be continually on the stretch to confine the tendon {c). 



A Horse with a Curb is manifestly Unsound. But as 

 Curbs do not necessarily produce lameness, it is considered 

 that Horses with Curbs may be passed as sound on a 

 special warranty being given, that, should the Curb cause 

 lameness within a reasonable time (which time should be 

 fixed) , the seller should be responsible. 



But if a Horse throw out a Curb immediately after 

 sale, it is no breach of a warranty of soundness, even if 

 he had Cuvbij /locks at the time of sale. Thus, where an 

 action was brought on a breach of warranty of sound- 

 ness, it appeared that the plaintiff before sale had objected 

 to the Horse because he had Ciwhy hocks. However, he 

 bought him on a general warranty of soundness being 

 given, and about a fortnight after sale the Horse sprung 

 a Curb. At the trial Veterinary Surgeons were called 

 by the plaintiff, who stated that the term Curby hocks 

 indicated a peculiar form of the hock, which was con- 

 sidered to render a Horse more liable to throw out a Curb, 

 but did not of itself occasion lameness. Lord Abinger, 

 0. B., told the Jury, " that a defect in the form of the 

 Horse, which had not occasioned lameness at the time of 

 the sale, although it might render the animal more liable 

 to become lame at some future time, was no breach of 

 the warranty." And, on a motion for a new trial, the 

 Court of Exchequer refused a rule, Mr. Baron Alderson 

 saying, " Dickenson v. Follett (d) is expressly in point 

 for the defendant, and the law as laid down by me on 



(c) Lib. U. K. "The Horse," 

 2G7. See also App. to U. K. Ed. 

 1862, p. 509. 



[d) Dickenson v. FoUett, I M. & 

 Eob. 299 ; and see Cutting, post. 



