339 



Another case upon the question of damages, is 

 to be found in Ryan and Moody, 436. 



It is the case of M'Kenzie v. Hancock. " In 

 assumpsit for the breach of warranty of soundness 

 of a horse, the defendant having refused to take 

 back the horse, tlie plaintiff is entitled to recover 

 for the keep for such time only as would be 

 required to sell the horse to the best advantage." 



The time must be a reasonable time ; the judge 

 (Littledale) alluded to the general prevalence of a 

 contrary doctrine; and as the defendant might 

 thus have his horse driven to a compulsory sale, it 

 is questionable, whether it is not to the advantage 

 of vendors, that the contrary doctrine should have 

 been still allowed to prevail. 



I have already quoted the case of Lewis v. Peat, 

 2 Marsh. 431 ; where it was held, that the plaintiff 

 could recover in damages, the costs of an action 

 brought against himself upon the warranty of a 

 horse for soundness ; of which action he had given 

 notice to the party, from whom he had himself 

 purchased the same horse upon a similar warranty. 



I have thus concluded the doctrine of horse 

 warranty ; and if my readers will bestow a tenth 

 part of the trouble in perusing it, that I have in 

 preparing it, the probability is, that they will be 

 ten times better paid for their labour, than I shal^ 

 z2 



