327 



Wilson upon this decision. He certainly ruled that 

 no return was necessary, but he also observed, that 

 if the plaintiff would rescind the contract entirely, 

 he must do it within a reasonable time, and that, as 

 he had not rescinded the contract, he could only 

 recover damages ; and then the question w^as, what 

 was the difference of value between horses of four 

 and five years old. 



The following case of Patteshall v. Tranter, 4 

 Nevile and Manning, 649, is a very important case 

 on the doctrine of reasonable time in a case of 

 unsoundness. The cause was tried before Mr. 

 Justice Park at Hereford, 1835, and it appeared 

 that the defendant had sold the horse with a war- 

 ranty of soundness, it being at the time unsound. 

 Shortly after the sale, the plaintiff discovered that 

 the horse was unsound, but without giving notice 

 to the defendant, he kept it for nine months, during 

 which he gave it physic, and used other means to 

 cure it ; he had also cut its tail. He then offered 

 to return the horse, but the defendant refused. It 

 was contended that the plaintiff was entitled to 

 recover the difference between the value and the 

 price given. On these facts the plaintiff was non- 

 suited ; and on moving for a new trial, the old case 

 of Fielder v. Starkin having been quoted, and also 

 Adams v. Richards, (both of which have been 



