OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 239 



tract, without returning the horse to the seller, 

 or without even giving him notice of the unsound- 

 ness or viciousness of the horse; yet it will raise 

 a prejudice against the buyer's evidence, if he does 

 not give notice within a reasonable time that he 

 has reasons to be dissatisfied with his bargain. ' ' ^^ 

 It has often been held that the implied warranty 

 does not bind in respect of obvious and patent 

 defects.^'* 



193. Warranty of Soundness. There is an old 

 doctrine of the common law which applies espe- 

 cially to the sale of animals — ''Caveat emptor/' 

 that is ''let the buyer beware." It may be said 

 that the basis of the doctrine, as applied to the 

 sale of animals, is to be found in the idea that men 

 are equally learned and equally ignorant relative 

 to animals. Unless there has been an evident at- 

 tempt to conceal a defect, or there has been made 

 an express warranty as to character and sound- 

 ness, there has generally been an agreement in 

 the decisions to the effect that the purchaser of 

 animals must run his own risks. Sometimes the 

 principle has been overworked to a ridiculous de- 

 gree. The selling of a glandered horse was not 

 considered an illegal act at the common law, even 

 when the seller knew the condition. ^^"^ "Where a 

 trade has been made, and one of the parties thus 

 got rid of a glandered animal, it was held that in 

 so doing he was not guilty of such fraudulent act 

 as would require suiTender on replevin of the 



23Chitty's Blackstone, II, 24a Hill v. Ball, 2 H. & N. 



451, note 22. 298. 



21 Chitty 's Blackstone, II, 



451, note 22, citing cases. 



