ACTS BARRIXG REJECTION. 81 



bought a mare from a horse-dealer, which he returned next 

 day as disconform to warranty. The seller wrote demanding 

 implement, but worked the mare in his business. It was 

 held that by so using it, he was barred from suing for the 

 price, (a) Thus, also, where A sold a horse to B, who kept 

 it ten days and resold it to C, who kept it twenty-seven days 

 and returned it as unsound, B proposed to reject it, but was 

 held barred by delay. (6) Again, a buyer of a horse having 

 sold and repurchased it, cannot, on discovering that it was 

 unsound when first sold, require the original purchaser to 

 take it back.(c) Also, a buyer who rode a horse from Edin- 

 burgh to Suffolk and back, was held barred from rejecting 

 it.(d) In another case a time limit of two days for trial was 

 given in a sale by auction with a warranty " six years old 

 and sound." The buyer kept the horse for ten days when it 

 was discovered to be twelve years old. A jury found for 

 the defender on the rejection being not timeous, but the 

 Court granted a new trial on the question of non-conformity 

 to the age warranty, (e) 



A purchaser may, however, return a horse at any time 

 within the time limited, even though it has by an accident 

 become depreciated in value. (/) 



Further, any act of appropriation, such as treating a horse 

 medically, may bar rejection. Thus, where a buyer treated a 

 horse for some months for blindness, the seller was relieved 

 on the ground of the buyer's treatment. ((/) Even neglecting 



(a) Croan v. Vallance, 1881, 8 R. 700. 

 (&) Bennoch v. ^PKail, 1820, 20 F.C. 89. 



(c) Street v. Blay, 1831, 2 B. and Ad. 456. As to effect of sale of goods when 

 disconform to order, see § 60, p. 79. 



(d) Sheriff V. Marshall, 1812, Hume, 697. 



(e) Buchanan v. Parnshaw, 1788, 2 T.R. 745. See also Budd v. Fainnaner, 

 1831, 8 Bing. 48. As to age warranties, see § 42. 



(/) Bead v. Tattersall, 1871, L.R. 7 Ex. 7 ; Ilinchcliffc v. Barwid; L.R. 

 5 Ex. D. 1880, 177 ; Elphick v. Barnes, 1880,L.R. 5 C.P.D. 321. 



{g) Russell V. Ferricr, 1792, Hume, 675. Lord Eskgrove, in holding the 

 warranty imprudent, both parties being aware of the defect, said, " I would lay 

 hold of a small matter to release him from it." 



G 



