HORSE AVARRANTY. 



Wlipro 

 ]>:ir(;iiin is 

 for ready 

 iiiomy uo 

 ;icrciitauco 

 until 

 inonoy 

 ]>.'ii(l. 



changed. Ho had in fact become bailee of the 

 horses for tho buyer, and, as C. J. ^lausfield re- 

 marked, " after the plaintiff had assented to keep 

 the horses at livery, they would, on tho decease of 

 tho defendant, have become general assets; and 

 80, if he had become bankrupt, they would have 

 gone to his assignees. Tho plaintiff could not 

 have retained them, though ho had not received 

 the price." The ruling in Elmore^ v. Stone wa.s 

 followed by Man-in v. WaUU (r). There tho jury 

 found, that after the bargain was concluded, tho 

 vendor borrowed the horse for a short time, with 

 the purchaser's consent, and the (iueen's Bench 

 held that there was a change in tho character 

 of the vendor from owner to bailee of the horse 

 in question. On tho other hand, it has been held 

 that whero tho parties agreed that tho bargain 

 should be a ready-money transaction, no right of 

 property passed until tho money was paid. In 

 Tempest V. Fitz'jera/d if), tho ])uyor oi a horse in 

 August, agreed to give forty-livo guineas for tho 

 animal and to take it away in (September. Ad- 

 mittedly, it was a ready-money deal. Tho buyer 

 returned at the end of Soplembor, had the horse 

 out, and tried it, and a.sked tho plaintiH's son 

 to keep tho horse for another week. Tho son, 



(r) C K. k B. 72G; 20 L. J., Q. B. 3C9. 

 V. Jirenffin, 6 C. B. 301. 

 (/) 3 B. 4: A. OSO. 



Sec also Beaumont 



