94 LESSOR MUST WARRANT THE USE OF HORSE HIRED. 



occurring during the time of hire was not due to his fault, (a) 

 In another case, the Landlord of a country residence having, 

 against the remonstrances of the tenant, made repairs upon 

 the stable and coach-house, and left these premises in such 

 a state of disrepair that the rain got in, was held liable for 

 the expenses of keeping the tenant's horse at livery in the 

 town to which he had meanwhile sent it, for the value of 

 some hay and straw destroyed by rain, and for the expenses 

 of a conveyance hired daily by the tenant to take him to 

 town.(6) How far apart from express contract the lessor is 

 liable to maintain a horse in a fit condition when its unfit- 

 ness is due to no fault of the lessee is not decided. Certainly 

 he would be liable for veterinary attendance if the animal 

 took ill, and for medical treatment during its illness, if 

 the disease were of a severe character ; but it is thought 

 that if the ailment be merely temporary, the lessee 

 must take the risk of it, and be satisfied with claim- 

 insf abatement of the hire. In all cases where a lessee 

 of a horse or carriage suffers loss occasioned by the 

 want of it, or by supervening incapacity not due to inevi- 

 table accident, the lessor is bound to indemnify him, and 

 to suffer an abatement of the hire if it accidentally become 

 wholly or partially useless, without blame on the part of 

 the lessee.(c) 



Insolvency is no defence to an action for implement of 

 a contract of hirmg, but it will expose the lessor to an action 

 of damages ; but impossibility of performing the contract is a 

 good defence, as — e.g.,hj the death of a particular animal.(cZ) 

 The risk remains with the owner ; and, if a horse perish, it 

 perishes to the owner, unless the injury is traceable to the 

 misconduct of the lessee, (e) 



(n) See Sutton, cit. ; and see § 74. 



(h) Robertson v. Mcnzies, 1S28, 6 S. 452 ; but see §§ 170, 171. 



(c) Ersk. iii. 3, 15 ; B.C. i. 482-483 ; Fowler v. Locke, 1872, L.R. 7 C.P. 272, 

 10 ib. 90. 



(d) B.C. i. p. 482. 



(e) Ersk. iii. 3, 15. 



