WARRANTY. 155 



brought the action against the horse dealer for 

 breach of warranty. 



The defence was that a horse dealer's servant 

 had no implied authority to warrant a horse on his 

 master's behalf, and that it was contrary to custom 

 to warrant a horse after examination by a veterinary 

 surgeon. The judge ruled that David Sheward 

 had authority to warrant, and gave a verdict for 

 plaintiff, £127 los. 



In a subsequent appeal, the former decision was 

 upheld, and the mere fact of the animal having 

 been examined for soundness and passed as sound 

 by a veterinary surgeon was not admissible to do 

 away with the servant's authority to warrant. 



A warranty given by a horse dealer's servant 

 upon incidental matters does not render the master 

 liable for damages. For instance, it was held on 

 appeal that where a servant warranted that a horse 

 could be put with safety amongst the plaintiff's 

 horses, though the servant knew that the animal 

 was suffering from parasitic mange, the master 

 was not liable for incidental matters, there being 

 no warranty given on the soundness of the animal. 



If the proprietor of a horse sends a stranger to 

 market, etc., with his horse, and he gives instruc- 

 tions not to warrant the animal, but the stranger 



