328 



already mentioned,) and the case of Street v. Blay, 

 just referred to, Lord Denman observed emphati- 

 cally that the case of Fielder v. Starkin was not 

 overruled, but still the rule vs^as made absolute. 

 Hence it appears that even retaining an unsound 

 horse for nine months, and treating him as his own 

 property, does not exclude the purchaser from his 

 right to recover on the warranty. The case of 

 Campbell v. Fleming, which I have before quoted, 

 does not seem by the report to have been alluded 

 to in this argument. It has a bearing however, 

 though only collaterally, on the question in Patte- 

 shall V. Tranter, and will deserve attention if the 

 same question should recur ; though for the rea- 

 sons already given, I am not disposed to place 

 much reliance on the authority of Campbell r. 

 Fleming. It may be expedient on any question of 

 reasonable time to refer to the case of Chesterman 

 V. Lamb, 4 Nevile and Manning, 195, hereafter 

 quoted ; but the direct authority of that case only 

 bears on the question of damages to be recovered 

 in an action on the warranty. 



It will not fail to be noticed, that the case of 

 Street v. Clay, goes farther than the cases last 

 quoted, as against a purchaser; not merely relieving 

 him from the necessity/ of a return, but actually 

 depriving him of the supposed right to return. 



