282 § 



thing sold, is evidence against the principal, but! 

 not what he has said at another time." 



In this case, the horse was standing at Tatter- 

 sail's, and had been described in the catalogue; 

 but before the day of sale, the defendant's groom 

 being there to take care of the horse, answered the 

 plaintiff's inquiry whether he was free from vice, 

 in the affirmative. The plaintiff failed to prove 

 the warranty, but in the progress of the cause 

 Lord Ellenborough remarked, " If the servant is 

 sent with the horse by his master, and which horse 

 is offered for sale, and gives the direction respecting 

 his sale, I think he thereby becomes the accredited 

 agent of his master, and what he has said at the 

 time of the sale, as part of the transaction of 

 selling, respecting the horse, is evidence ; but an 

 acknowledgment to that effect, made at another 

 time, is not so : it must be confined to the time of 

 actual sale, when he was acting for his master." 

 And in another place his lordship adds, '* I think 

 the master having entrusted the servant to sell, he 

 is entrusted to do all he can to effectuate the sale ; 

 and if he does exceed his authority in so doing, he 

 binds his master." 



In Alexander v, Gibson, 2 Campbell, 555, 

 a servant being employed to sell a horse and 

 receive the price, was held to have an implied 



