249 



purpose, and it turns out unfit, an action lies, 

 though there has been no warranty." 



Abbott, C. J. on the trial : '' I think at present 

 it is not a case for a nonsuit. My direction to the 

 jury will be on the case as it now stands, that 

 where a commodity having a fixed price or value, 

 which distinguishes this from the case of a sale of 

 a horse, which has no fixed value, — where, I say, 

 such commodity is sold for a particular purpose, it 

 must be understood that it is to be reasonably fit 

 and proper for that purpose ; and when I say, rea- 

 sonably fit and proper, I mean that a few defective 

 sheets will not show that it is not fit and proper.'^ 

 The verdict was for the plaintiff", ^nd a rule nisi 

 was obtained for a new trial. On the argument 

 Mr. Justice Littledale observed, that " the case of 

 Chandelor v. Lopus (hereafter quoted) went much 

 too far." The case was reserved for further argu- 

 ment ; but I cannot find that the argument was 

 ever resumed. I apprehend the meaning of a 

 horse wanting a " fixed value," simply to be that 

 its value is arbitrary, and not fixed by any given 

 standard. 



In Prosser v. Hooper, 1 Moore, 106, "The 

 plaintiff* bought saff'ron of an inferior quality, which, 

 having kept six months and sold part, he then 

 objected that the article was not saflfron. Held in 



