279 



Justice Dallas : Chief Justice Tindal observed, 

 ^^ What a man warrants he must make good, 

 whether he knew the fact or not, but for what he 

 represents, if there is a latent defect, and he acts 

 honafide, he is not at all answerable." 



The same doctrine was held in De Sewhanberg 

 r. Buchanan, 5 C. and P. 343. " If there was no 

 express warranty," said Chief Justice Tindal, 

 " but only a representation, then as there is no 

 evidence that the plaintiff did not believe that the 

 picture was a Rembrandt, he will be entitled to 

 recover the full amount of the bill." 



I In Richardson v. Brown, 8 Moore, 338, where 

 the plaintiff brought an action to recover the price 

 of a horse sold under the following w^arranty — " A 

 black gelding, about five years old, has been con- 

 stantly driven in the plough — warranted ;" it was 

 held that the terms of such warranty applied to 



, the soundness of the horse, rather than to the nature 



i of his employment. 



I have already adverted to the necessity of a 

 warranty being given previously to or cotempo- 

 raneously with the purchase : if given afterwards it 

 makes for nothing, because it is considered in law 

 that the purchase money having been already paid 



' or promised, a subsequent warranty is without 

 consideration, and consequently invalid ; but 



