WARRANTY. S83 



of them Is effected, the legal transfer of property, or its delivery, is 

 made, and whatever may happen to the horse, the seller retains, or 

 is entitled to, the money. If the purchaser exercises any act of 

 ownership— as by using the animal without leave of the seller, or 

 by having any operation performed upon him, or medicines given 

 to him — he makes him his own. 



If the horse should afterward be discovered to have been un- 

 sound at the time of warranty and sale, the buyer may return him. 

 Although not legally compelled to give notice to the seller of the 

 discovered unsoundness, it is best that such notice should be given. 

 The animal should then be tendered at the house or stable of the 

 seller. If he refuses to receive the animal, humanity dictates that 

 lie should be sent to a livery stable, in preference to tying him up 

 in the street ; an action can be maintained, after the horse has been 

 tendered, for the necessary expenses of keeping him as well as for 

 the price paid. The keep, however, can be recovered only for the 

 time that necessarily intervened between the tender and the deter- 

 mination of the action. It is not legally necessary to return the 

 animal as soon as the unsoundness is discovered. The animal may 

 be kept for a reasonable time afterward, and even proper medical 

 means may be resorted to for the removal of the unsoundness ; but 

 courtesy, and indeed justice, will require that the notice should be 

 given as soon as possible. Although it is laid down, upon the au- 

 thority of an eminent English judge, that "no length of time elapsed 

 after the sale, will alter the nature of a contract originally false, ' ' yet 

 there are recorded cases in which the buyer was prevented from 

 maintaining his action, because he did not give notice of the un- 

 soundness within a reasonable time after its discovery. What will 

 constitute this reasonable time, depends upon many circumstances. 

 It was formerly supposed that the buyer had no right to have the 

 horse medically treated, and that he would vitiate the warranty by 

 so doing. The question, however, in such a case would be, whether 

 the animal was injured, or his value lessened, by such treatment. 

 It maybe remarked that it is generally most prudent to refrain from 

 all medical treatment, since the means adopted, no matter how 

 skillfully used, may have an unfortunate effect, or what is don© 

 may be misrepresented by ignorant or interested observers. 



Wlien a horse is returned, and an action brought for the price, 

 it is indispensable that in every respect, except the alleged un- 

 soundness, the animal should be as perfect and valuable as whett 

 he was bought. 



