284 



was sound all over," and the plaintiff thereupon 

 recovered. So in Pickering v. Busk, 15 East, 45, 

 Mr. Justice Bayley says, " If the servant of a 

 horse-dealer, with express directions not to war- 

 rant, do warrant, the master is bound." In the 

 case of Fenn v. Harrison, 3 T. R., 757, Lord Ken- 

 yon holds this doctrine, and says, that the master 

 has his remedy over against the servant. 



In Scotland (Bank) v. Watson, 1 Dow. 45, a 

 distinction is made between the servant of a horse- 

 dealer, and the servant of a person not being a 

 dealer, — in the latter case the servant not having 

 the power to bind his master, if forbidden to war- 

 rant. The case of Strode r. Dyson, 1 Smith, 400, 

 also bears on this point; as well as that of 

 Woodin V. Burford, 2 D. and M., 391, where an 

 authority to a servant to deliver a horse was held 

 not to extend to warranting him, though the ser- 

 vant signed a receipt for the price. 



There is a case of Ashbourne v. Price, 1 Dow- 

 ling and Ryland, 48 N. P. C, in which, without 

 reference to the distinction made in the case oi 

 Scotland v» Watson, a contrary opinion appears to 

 be entertained ; but as the allusion to horse-dealing 

 was only incidental, I think it cannot be held to 

 overrule the authority of the last two cases. 



" Where an attorney's clerk admitted, on the 



