SALE AND WARRANTY BY AN AGENT. 129 



scope of his authority. This is the common and usual 

 manner in which the business is done, and the Agent must 

 be taken to be vested with powers to transact the business 

 with which he is entrusted in the common and usual 

 manner" {e). 



The case of Howard v. Sheicard (/) very clearly illus- 

 trates the rule that the Agent or Servant of a Horsedealer 

 has an implied authority to bind his Principal or Master 

 by a Warranty. In that case it ajDpeared that the defen- 

 dant was a Horsedealer, and that in March, 1866, the 

 plaintiff, being at a riding-school, asked the proprietor " if 

 he knew of a horse that would be likely to suit him," and 

 that David Sheward, the brother of the defendant, who 

 happened to be present," and who was a Horsedealer, and 

 occasionally acted in the sale of Horses for the defendant, 

 said he thought the latter had one. After some conversa- 

 tion the Horse in question was brought to the riding- 

 school, and there ridden by the plaintiff and approved of 

 by him ; and David Sheward, in answer to questions as to 

 the character and soundness of the animal, said, "I'll gua- 

 rantee the Horse is sound." Ultimately the horse, — which 

 had at the plaintiff's request been previously examined by 

 a Veterinary Surgeon, who gave a certificate that it was 

 sound, — was purchased by the plaintiff for 315/., which 

 sum he paid to the defendant. The Horse, proving to be 

 unsound, was re-sold by the plaintiff, and this action was 

 brought to recover the dift'erence in price. On the part of 

 the defendant it was contended that the Servant of a 

 Horsedealer (assuming David Sheward to have been the 

 defendant's Servant for this purpose) has no implied 

 authority to warrant on his Master's behalf ; and evidence 

 was offered to show that it was not the custom with 

 Horsedealers to warrant where the Horse had been 

 examined by a competent Yeterinary Surgeon and pro- 

 noimced sound. Erie, 0. J., declined to receive the evi- 

 dence, and said that he should rule that David Sheward 

 had authority to warrant ; and the Jury, finding that he 

 had done so, and that the Horse was unsound, returned a 

 verdict for the plaintiff, damages 127/. 10s., and leave was 



[e) Alexander v. Gibson, 2 Camp. Alexander v. Gibson must be taken 



555. It appears to be taken foi* to he oYeT\raled.\)j Brady y. Todd [c), 



granted in Chit. Contr. 7tli ed. 201, ante, and, therefore, such a reading 



that the master in this case was a of the case does not affect the state- 



Horsedealer, but it is not so ex- ment of the law in the text, 

 pressed in the Report. If the (/) L. R., 2 C. P. 148; 36 L. J., 



master were not a Horsedealer, C. P. 42. 



O. K 



