257 



It is also to be noticed in this case, that the 

 period of time when the warranty is given, is held 

 to be immaterial, if the sale is made on the faith of 

 it. ^^ And if the w^arranty be made at the time of 

 sale, or before the sale, and the sale is upon the 

 faith of the warranty, I can see no distinction be- 

 tween the cases," says Mr. Justice Buller. 



The authority of this case was confirmed in 

 Eyre v. Dunsford, 1 East, 318. 



The case of Parkinson v. Lee, 2 East, 314, 

 already quoted, distinctly confirms the case of 

 Chandelor v. Lopus ; and puts the action of deceit 

 upon very intelligible ground, especially in the 

 instance of horse-dealing. 



Again, in the case of Vernon v. Keys, 12 East, 

 637, Lord Ellenborough remarks : " A seller is 

 unquestionably liable to an action of deceit, if he 

 fraudulently misrepresent the quality of the thino- 

 sold to be other than it is, in some particulars which 

 the buyer has not equal means with himself of 

 knowing : or, if he do so in such a manner as to 

 induce the buyer to forbear making the inquiries 

 which, for his own security and advantage, he would 

 otherwise have made." 



In 6 Vesey, 174, Evans v. Bicknell, Lord Eldon 

 recognises the authority of Pasley v. Freeman. 

 After alluding to the case, his lordship remarks, 

 s 



