HORSE WARRANTY. 43 



man v. Gwythcr (.s), -when a liorse was warranted 

 sound for one month, it was held that the com- 

 plaint of unsoundness must bo made within one 

 month of the sale, and the vendor was held not 

 liable for a defect which existed at the time of 

 sale, but was not discovered imtil more than a 

 month had elapsed. 



A large horse dealer for many years never war- 

 ranted horses, and never meant to do so, but find- 

 ing that County Coiu-t juries woidd not believe ho 

 had not done so, now says, when asked if he war- 

 rants a horse, " You may take him as warranted 

 for a week from to-day ; " and he finds, although 

 some horses are returned on his hands with a 

 veterinary certificate of imsoundness, yet on the 

 whole he is the gainer by obtaining better prices 

 and avoiding litigation. 



There may also be a special waiTanty, as where Special 

 the parties in bupng and selling a horse discuss a uatu^^"df! 

 certain defect in the animal of which they are 

 cognizant, and the buyer requires a warranty from 

 the seller holding the latter answerable against 

 the defects wliich might be likely to proceed from 

 the defect ; such a warranty would be a special 

 one. So, also, where the seller wishes to exempt 

 himself from liability in respect of the unsound- 

 ness likely to arise from a known defect. 



In Chanter v. Hopkins {t), the Court said : " If 



(*) 1 L. R., Q. B. 4G3. {() 4 M. & W. 406. 



