WARRANTY. 121 



had never been in harness, the buyer would be entitled to 

 recover, on proving that the Horse was unfit for the pur- 

 pose for which it was sold, although it might be fit for 

 several other purposes. The selling upon demand for a 

 Horse with particular qualities, is an affirmation that he 

 possesses those qualities (c) . 



And in Chanter v. Ilophins {d), Mr. Baron Parke said, A Carriage 

 " Suppose a party offered to sell me a Horse of such a °^^^' 

 description as would suit my carriage, he could not fix on 

 me a liability to pay for it, unless it were a Horse fit for 

 the purpose it was wanted for ; but if I describe it as a 

 particular bay Horse, in that case the contract is performed 

 by his sending that Horse" {c). 



Nor is there any exception as to latent undiscoverable Latent undis- 

 defects. In Randall v. Neicson (/), the plaintiff ordered ^overable 

 and bought of the defendant, a coach-builder, a pole for 

 his carriage. The pole broke in use, and the Horses 

 became frightened and were injured. In an action for 

 the damage, the Jury found that the pole was not reason- 

 ably fit for the carriage, but that the defendant had been 

 guilty of no negligence. On motion by the defendant 

 for judgment, the Court ( g) ordered judgment to be 

 entered for the defendant, on the ground that the answers 

 of the Jury amounted to a finding of a latent defect in 

 the wood of the pole, which no care or skill could discover, 

 and that the principle of the decision in Readhead v. Mid- 

 land Rail. Co. (//) extended to the sale of an article for a 

 specific purpose. The plaintiff appealed. And the Court 

 of Appeal held that the limitation as to latent defects, 

 introduced by Readhead v. Midland Rail. Co. {i), does not 

 apply to the sale of a chattel, and that the plaintiff was 

 entitled to recover the value of the pole, and also for 

 damage to the Horses, if the Jury on a second trial should 

 be of opinion that the injury to the Horses was the natural 

 consequence of the defect in the pole. 



Proof that a Horse is a good drawer only will not Quiet in 



Harness. 



(c) Per Best, C. J., Jones v. 164. 

 Bright, 5 Bing. 544 ; -S. C. 3 M. & (y) Blackburn and Lush, JJ. 



P. 162 ; see also Jones v. Just, L. R., \h) L. R., 4 Q. B. 379. 



3 Q. B. 197; 37 L. J., Q. B. 89 ; (t) L. E., 4 Q. B. 379. This 



18 L. T., N. S. 208. case decided that the contract made 



{(l) 4 M. & W. 406. by a carrier of passengers is to take 



[e) Chanter v. Hopkins, 4 M. & due care to carry the passengers 



W. 406. See also Chalmers v. safely, and is not a warranty that 



Harding, 17 L. T., N. S. 571. the carriage in which he travels 



(/■) L. R., 2 Q. B. D. 102 ; 46 shall be in all respects perfect for 



L. J., Q. B. 259 ; 36 L. T., N. S. its purpose. 



