88 SALE AND AVARRANTY BY AX AGENT OR SERVANT. 



are extended or restricted by usage of trade.(«) The follow- 

 ing cases show pretty clearly what is within the implied 

 authority of servants in horse cases : — A servant employed 

 to buy a pair of carriage horses did so, and at the time his 

 attention Avas drawn to an obvious cause of lameness, and it 

 was held that the buyer having been put on his guard, was 

 bound to have thoroughly inspected and tested the animal, 

 and not having done so was not entitled to repetition of the 

 price. (6) Again, a coachman went in his master's livery 

 and hired horses which his master afterwards used ; the 

 master was held liable for the hire of the horses (although 

 he had previously agreed to pay the coachman a large salary 

 to provide horses), unless it could be sho"\vn that the person 

 from whom the horses were hired had notice that the coach- 

 man hired them on his own account, and not for his master. (c) 

 Thus, also, a master, by agreement with his groom, allowed him 

 £5, 5s. a-year for shoeing and medicine. A farrier employed 

 by the groom sued the master for medicines ; and was held 

 entitled to recover. Lord Kenyon observed : — " That it was 

 no defence to the action unless the plaintiff knew of this agree- 

 ment, and expressly trusted the groom. ... A tradesman 

 has nothing to do Avith any private agreement between the 

 master and servant."(c?) Also, a master having sent his ser- 

 vant with a horse, to be sold at a fair, and the servant having, 

 on the journey, placed the horse in a stable, knowing that it 

 was diseased Avith glanders, and the horses in the stable 

 became infected and died ; it Avas held that a claim of 

 damages Avas relevant against the master, although his per- 

 sonal knoAvledge of the horse being diseased Avas not 

 averred. (f?) Again, the servant of a manufacturing chemist 

 purchased a horse, in the ordinary course of busmcss, for its 



(a) §§ 11, 40, p. 54. 



(b) Brand v. Wight, 1813, Hume, 697. 



(c) Rimmel v, Sampayo, 1824, 1 C. and P. 254. 



{d) Precious v. Abel, 1795, 1 Esp. 350; contrast with lliscox v. Greenwood, 

 1802, 4 Epp. 174. 



(e) Baird v. Graham, 1852, 14 D. 615. 



