HIRING HORSES. 247 



not having supplied such a fit and proper Carriage as he 

 ought to have supplied, or whether the plaintiff sues him 

 in contract for the hreach of the implied warranty that the 

 Carriage was as fit and proper as it ought to have been, 

 appears to me wholly immaterial. Upon this point I 

 adopt the opinion of Baron Martin in Francis v. Cocli- 

 re/l{i(), which is based upon and warranted by Bronii v. 

 Boorman (.r). 



" The plaintiff's pleadings would have been free from all 

 objection if he had stated in his statement of claim that 

 he hired the Carriage of the defendant, and not merely 

 that the plaintiff was lawfully in the Carriage. But the 

 defendant knew under what circumstances the plaintiff 

 was lawfully in it, and there was no surprise or miscar- 

 riage of justice occasioned by the omission of the statement 

 of the fact of hiiing. It appears to me, therefore, that the 

 plaintiff ought not to be precluded from recovering in this 

 action as the pleadings stand, if the facts come out in his 

 favour. 



"For the above reasons I am of opinion that there 

 should be a new trial, and that the costs of the first trial, 

 and of this rule, should abide the event." 



And even if a particular Horse has been selected out of Where a par- 

 the owner's stables, it makes no difference, as it must be ticular Horse 

 supposed that all are fit for their work {y). 



But if a Horse is hired for one purpose and is used But a 

 for another, and the Horse when thus used is injured, the lio^'^e should 

 Hirer is liable for the damage thus occasioned. Accord- foj, ^ purpose 

 ingly where a Horse was hired as a lady's riding Horse, other than 

 the Hirer was held to be liable for damage occasioned when that for which 



,.,.., , s ° it was hired, 



trymg mm m harness (;:). 



In contracts reciprocally beneficial to both parties, such What care is 

 as Hiring, &c., such care is exacted, as every prudent man required, 

 commonly takes of his own goods ; and by consequence 

 the Hirer is answerable for ordinary neglect {a). If there- 

 fore a man so treat and manage his Hired Horse as any 

 prudent man would act towards his own Horse, he is not 

 answerable for any damage the Horse may receive {b). 



Where the plaintiff declared that, at the defendant's Infancy good 

 request, he delivered a Mare to the defendant to be pru- <iefence to an 



^ ' '- action on 



contract. 

 39 L. J., {z) Gapp V. Giandonati, C. P., 



N. P., Nov. 14, 1857, coram Cress- 

 well, J. 

 T. 231, {n) Jones on Bailments, 2.5. 



(/') Cooper \. Burton, 3 Camp. 5, n. 



