WAKKAXTY. lie 



question was tried wliether certain Race horses named ^gis, 

 Ninnyhammer, and War Eagle, were the property of the 

 plaintiff when they were seized in execution by the sheriff 

 of Cambridgeshire, at Newmarket, under a fi. fa., conse- 

 quent on a judgment obtained by the defendant against a 

 gentleman named Carew, and the Jury found a verdict for 

 the plaintiff (7;). 



But an interpleader order will not be granted where the 

 respective claims are not co-extensive. Thus, where the 

 defendant, the proprietor of a Horse Repository, sold there, 

 by public auction, a Horse to the plaintiff, warranted quiet 

 to ride and in harness, but subject to a condition by which, 

 if considered by the buyer incapable of working from any 

 infirmity or disease, it might be returned on the second 

 day after the sale, and the matter determined by veterinary 

 surgeons according to the terms provided for in such con- 

 dition ; and the horse was accordingly returned by the 

 plaintiff, who demanded to have back the money he had 

 paid for the purchase, and this being refused he brought 

 an action against the defendant for breach of warranty ; 

 and the person who had placed the Horse at the Repository 

 for sale claimed of the defendant the proceeds of the sale, 

 stating that the Horse had left the Repository perfectly 

 sound. It was held that the defendant was not entitled to 

 an interpleader order {q). 



The reason laid down for requiring a Warranty of Reason for 

 soundness in buying a Horse is, that it is well known ^umng a 

 they have secret maladies which cannot be discovered ^ ^' 



by the usual trials and inspections, and that a Warranty 

 prevents the piu'chaser from being damnified by those 

 latent Defects against which no prudence can guard ; as 

 it differs from the case of a manufactured article, where a 

 merchant, by providing proper materials and workman- 

 ship, may prevent Defects (/•). And the late Mr. Youatt 

 said, " A man should have a more perfect knowledge of 

 Horses than falls to the lot of most of men, and a perfect 

 knowledge of the vendor too, who ventures to buy a Horse 

 without a Warranty" (s). But the same, nnitatis mutandis, 

 may very justly be said of a person who ventures to give 

 a Warranty on the sale of a Horse. 



{p) Ford V. Sykes, before Lord (r) 1 Rol. Abr. 90 ; Jones v. 



Campbell, C. J., Cambridge Spring Bright^ 5 Bing. 544. 



Assizes, 1853. (s) Lib. U. K. "The Horse," 



{q) Wright v. Freeman, 48 L. J., 368. 



C. P. 276; 40 L. T., N. S. 134. 



i2 



