277 



can be said to be a good drawer if he will not pull 

 quietly in harness, and therefore proof that he is 

 merely a good puller will not satisfy the warranty : 

 the word good, must mean good in all particulars." 

 This case decides that on the part of the dealer 

 he will be held strictly to his engagement ; the 

 following cases will equally prove that on the part 

 of the buyer, he will not be allowed to interpret 

 the warranty beyond its fair meaning. 



In Geddes v. Pennington, 5 Dow. 159, the 

 warranty was that the horse was thoroughly broke 

 for gig or saddle, and so it was proved ; but the 

 purchaser being unskilful in driving, he could not 

 repudiate the contract for faults that in more skilful 

 hands, would not have been displayed ; there ap- 

 pears however, on the case, reason to infer, that 

 the faults v^^ere actually produced by the unskilful- 

 ness of the purchaser. 



In the next case, the limits within which a 

 warranty must be taken, are yet more closely 

 defined. 



Budd V. Fairmaner, 5 Carr. and P. 78. — " A re- 

 ceipt on the sale of a colt, contained the following 

 words after the date, name, and sum : ^ for a grey 

 four-years-old colt, warranted sound in every re- 

 spect.' Held that such part as related to the age 

 was a representation only, and not a warranty." 



