IIOHSK WARRANTY. 45 



clofenilant to prove all tlio snn'oimding firciira- 

 stancos and statonionts of tlic parties, as well after 

 as before the letters, to show that a warranty was 

 not contemplated between the parties, and by a 

 parity of reasoning it may bo said that parol evi- 

 dence would be admitted to show that a warranty 

 was intended by a number of documents. 



In a Sussex County Court, a buyer once proved 

 a warranty in this way — he sent his servant with 

 a cheque and note to the seller, saying if the seller 

 warranted the horse specified, as soioid, he could 

 retain the cheque and send the horse; but, if not, 

 the cheque was to be returned. The seller kept 

 the cheque and sent the horse. The horse was 

 found to be blind, and returned ; and though the 

 seller tried to deny the warranty, the buyer suc- 

 ceeded in his action by producing a copy of his 

 letter, which the seller admitted was correct. 



A large price is no proof of warranty. Mr. Largeprice 

 Justice Grose, in the case of Parkinson v. Lee (a), warranty, 

 referring to the controversy as to implied warranty 

 before Douglnn's case, said : " Before that time it 

 was a current opinion that a large price given for 

 a horse was tantamount to a wan'anty of sound- 

 ness ; but when that came to be sifted it was found 

 to be so loose and unsatisfactory a ground of de- 

 cision, that Lord Mansfield rejected it, and said, 



(a) 2 East, 314. See also Stuart t. Wilkins, Douglas, 19 ; and 

 Kiddell v. Buniard, 9 M. & "^^. 6CS. 



