DAMAGES. 209 



tlie value, the Price oflPered for the Horse whilst in the 

 plaintiff's hands. The Jury found for the plaintiff 90/. 13.s. 

 damages. A rule nisi was obtained for a new trial on the 

 ground of misdirection, or for a reduction of damages. 

 Cause was shown in Easter Term, 1836, before Lord Den- 

 man, 0. J., and Littledale, Patteson, and Coleridge, J J. 

 The Court took time to consider, and the case stood over 

 for several terms, but was at length settled. 



And in another case, where the Horse had been tendered Expense in 

 to the defendant and refused. Chief Justice Tindal in ^^^'^s^- 

 charging the Jury said, " You will give as damages the 

 difference between the Price paid and the real Value of the 

 Horse, and damages for the Expense which the plaintiff 

 was put to by the defendant selling him that which was of 

 no use to him, for a certain time, at least to the time when 

 he offered the Horse to the defendant" {k). 



The increase in value consequent on the care and ex- Expenses in 

 pense bestowed on a Horse after iDurchase, and evidenced advancing- 



f , • 1 • \ L 1 T 1 1 the Horse 8 



by an advance of price on a resale, might probably be value, 

 recovered, if the cause of such increase were properly laid 

 as special damage. Because, although the Court of Queen's 

 Bench thought it unnecessary to give their opinion in Clare 

 V. Maynard (/), as that point did not there properly arise ; 

 yet Lord Denman, C. J., appeared to hold that if it had 

 arisen, he should have directed the Jury as he did in the 

 case of Cox v. Walker, and then the measure of Damages 

 would be the difference between the Price ultimately ob- 

 tained for him, and his actual Value if he had been sound 

 at the time of such last resale [m). 



And where a Horse had been bought in the country. Horse ten- 

 and brought up to London, and after it was discovered ^^^'^^ ami 

 to be Unsound was tendered to the seller, and then sold Auction. ^ 

 by auction. Lord Denman, C. J., told the Jury that the 

 measure of Damages was the difference between the Value 

 of the Horse, if Sound (of which the price was only strong 

 evidence), and the Sum it brought as TJnsound {n). 



That the buyer could not recover the expenses of obtain- Expense of 

 ing a Certificate of Unsoundness from the Veterinary Col- p*^*f-'fl°^J^ 

 lege or of Counsel's opinion, as they were no part of the and Coun- 

 necessary expenses, but were merely for the plaintiff's own sel's opinion. 



(/t) TTafson v. Doiton, 7 C. & P. {»i) Cox v. WalJcer, cited ibid. 



91. («) Clare v. Maynard, 7 C & P. 



(0 Clare v. Maynard, 6 A. & E. 741. 

 523. 



O. P 



