274 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



that the animals are reasonably fit and suitable 

 for the work which they are hired to perfonn, if 

 the same is known to the bailor.^ It is thus his 

 duty to notify of vicious propensities, and he is 

 liable for the vicious act of his horse if he failed to 

 give notice.^ But when the bailor warned the 

 bailee of the horse's habit of kicking, and the 

 bailee did not use a kicking strap, it was held that 

 the bailor was not liable for injury sustained. ^° 



A distinction must be recognized between negli- 

 gence and fraud or deceit. The bailor makes no 

 implied warranty that his animals are fit to do 

 more than that for which they are hired. If a man 

 should engage a span of horses to drive for a fore- 

 noon, and should take a span of roadsters and 

 hitch them to a plow for the breaking of land, a 

 purpose for which they were not fitted, and were 

 not hired, the bailee would be held strictly liable 

 for the full amount of damage sustained by the 

 team, for he practiced fraud and deception in the 

 transaction.^^ No superficial technicality of words 

 would relieve him. Were he to plead that he en- 

 gaged the horses for driving, but that he did not 

 say where he was going to drive them, or hitched 

 to what kind of a rig, and that therefore he had 

 not used them for a purpose otherwise than they 

 had been hired, such a plea would doubtless be 

 held only to indicate the greater degree of fraud 



8 Bass V. Cantor, 123 Ind. Kimball Co., 153 N. W. 13; 



444, 24 N. E. 147 ; Leach v. Kissan v. Jones, 56 Hun, 432. 

 French, 69 Me. 389; Harring- lo Ohlweiler v. Lohmann, 82 



ton V. Snyder, 3 Barb. 380. Wis. 198, 52 N. W. 172. 



» Campbell v. Page, 67 Barb. "Lockwood v. Bull, 1 Cow. 



113; Mayer v. Kloepfer, 69 322. 

 Atl. 182; Bobbins v. Magoon & 



