246 



mention exiery case^ that I can find connected with 

 the subject of horse-deahng, I think it better to 

 omit none, even at the hazard of involving my 

 readers in some uncertainty as to the result. My 

 own opinion I have already given, and it has been 

 formed on an attentive perusal of the whole. 



On the subject of implied warranty, the first 

 case to which I shall refer is the case of Hern v. 

 Nicholls, 1 Salk. 289, where an action was brought 

 on the sale of silk, which was sold- as silk of a 

 particular sort, which it was not ; though the deceit 

 was not practised by the defendant, but by his 

 factor abroad, the court held him responsible for 

 the deceit of his factor. In 6 Taunt. 108, Laing 

 V, Fidgeon, the court held that " in every contract 

 for the supply of manufactured goods, there is an 

 implied term that the goods shall be of mer chant- 

 able character." 



In Gardiner v. Gray, 4 Camp. 144, the plaintiff 

 had purchased twelve bags of " waste silk :" when 

 delivered they appeared to be of such inferior 



* Some of my sporting friends who have been parties to actions 

 at law in horse-dealing transactions, have expressed to me their 

 surprise at not finding any allusion to their cases j but they must 

 understand that no cases are reported in our law books unless 

 they involve some legal question. When, therefore, I speak of 

 mentioning every case, I of course only mean every case which 

 governs the law of the subject. 



