42 



HORSE AVARUAMY. 



Effect of 

 notice on 



IxiUT'l ill 



miction 

 lyoiii. 



received some iiijiuy when in the custody of the 

 buyer deprived the latter of his right to return it. 

 It was held that it did not. Baron Bramwell 

 said, " It was quite true as a general proposition 

 that a buyer cannot return a specific chattel ex- 

 cept it be in the same state as when it was bought ; 

 but in such a case as the present, the ndo must bo 

 qualified thus : the buyer must return the horse in 

 the same condition as when ho bought it, but sub- 

 ject to any of those incidents to which the horse 

 might bo liable either from its inherent nature or 

 from the course of the exercise by the buyer of 

 those rights over it which the contract gave. For 

 examplo, suppose the liorso when standing in the 

 stable strained itself or injured a limb, that would 

 not affect tlio right of ruturn, although the horse 

 would no longer be cxat-tly in the same condition 

 as before." 



In Jii/irafrr v. Richardson (r), a notice painted 

 on a board and fixed in a conspicuous position, 

 and stating that any warranty of horses selling 

 tliat day at a private sale was to renuiin in force 

 only until twelve o'clock next day, was construed 

 to mean tliat tlio seller was responsible only for 

 Bucli defects as were pointed out before that liom-, 

 altliougli the unsoundness svdjsequently ascertained 

 was of such a nature as would n(;t be discovered 

 within the twenty-four hours. .So again in Clinp- 



(r) 1 Ad. & EUifl, 608. 



