VETERINARY SURGEON AND FARRIER. 229 



goes, or an action lies against him for refusing. Thus if 

 a Farrier refuse to shoe a Horse (/), an Innkeeper to re- 

 ceive a guest, a Carrier to carry, when he may do it, an 

 action lies (k) . 



But the Horse must be brought to be shod at a reason- When 

 able time for such purpose ; because if brought at an irregu- 'wrought at a 

 lar hour, the Farrier may say, " I will not do it" (y ). tfme°^^ ^ 



A Farrier is liable for laming a Horse in shoeing it, and Answerable 

 the action is founded on the implied contract, that every for his own 

 workman undertaking any work will perform it properly (/), "^^^^* o^ skill, 

 because it is the duty of every artificer to exercise his art 

 rightly and truly as he ought {m) . 



And an action may be maintained for a breach of duty. Where a third 

 arising out of a contract with a third person. Thus pey^on is 

 Coke, C. J., puts this case, " If the master sends his ^ ^^ ® • 

 servant to pay money for him upon the penalty of a 

 Bond, and on his way a Smith in shoeing doth prick his 

 Horse, and so by reason of this the money is not paid ; 

 this being the servant's Horse, he shall have an action 

 iipon the Case for pricking of his Horse ; and the master 

 also shall have his action tipon the Case for the special wrong 

 which he hath sustained by the non-payment of his money 

 occasioned by this" {n). 



And where a Horse has been injured in shoeing from when an- 

 the negligence of a Farrier's servant, the master is liable (o), swerable for 

 But not if the wrong be u-iifnl, as if the servant maliciously ^^^ servant. 

 drives a nail into the Horse's foot in order to lame him (/j). 



An action lies against a Farrier for pricking a Horse, Action 

 when shoeing him {q), and where one Smith lends a Horse against a 

 to another, and the second pricks him in shoeing, the action pHekin""- a" 

 lies against the first, or the second, in the option of the Horse.'' 

 owner (r). 



The Rule of Law as to the extent of a Farrier's liability roUhis v. 

 in shoeing a Horse, is fully and clearly laid down by Chief liodwaij. 

 Baron Pollock in the case of Collins v. Roduay {s) ; and as 

 that case does not appear in any of the Reports, it will 



(.;•) 14 Hen. 6, 18. (;;) Jones x. Hart, 2 Salk. 440. 



{k) See note (*), ante. [q) Nat. Brev. 94 d; 17 Edw. 4, 



(0 2 Chit. Pleading, 6th ed. 262. 43 ; 11 Edw. 4, 6 ; 56 Edw. 3, 19; 



{m) Rex V. EUdcrby, 1 Saund. 3 Hen. 6, 36 ; 14 Hen. 6, 88 ; Orig. 



312, n. 2. 106 a: 48 Edw. 3, 6, pi. 11. 



[n) Everard \ . Bopldns, 2 Bidstr. (/) 12 Edw. 4, 13. 



332 ; and see Longmcad v. Ilolllday, (a) Collins v. Itodicay, before Pol- 



6 Exch. 704. lock, C. B., Guildhall, Dec. 15, 



(o) 1 Bla. Com. 431; Raiidlcson 1845; 14 Veterinarian, 102. 

 V. Muryrnj, 8 A. & E. 109. 



