•K) HORSK \V MIKAM V. 



'there must cither bo an express warranty of sound- 

 ness or fraud in tlie .seller to maintain an action.'" 



It is now law, that a high price is not tanta- 

 mount to an implied warranty. 



Sometimes buyers of horses make mistakes, 

 and suppose they have a warranty, because many 

 dealers and others in selling a horse, make all 

 sorts of statements which are only intended to bo 

 representations, and it becomes a question with a 

 complainant who tliinks he has been defrauded, to 

 consider, were the words used only representations 

 or warranties. If a seller says "I can fully recom- 

 mend this horse," or "I would sell it to my dearest 

 friend," although such language might induce a 

 purchaser to buy, still those words do not amount 

 to a warranty. 



The distinction between a warranty and a mere 

 representation made before the sale is pointed out 

 in the notes to Govham v. Stircf in;/ (b), hut it is not 

 easy always to distingui.sh them. 



In Salmon v. Ward (c), which was an action on 

 the warranty of a horse, the principal e\'idenco 

 consisted of letters which had passed between the 

 parties ; the argument of the defendant was that 

 the statements made respecting the horse in ques- 

 tion were only representations and descriptions ; 

 C. J. Best, said : *' The question is whether the 

 jury and I can collect that a warranty took place; 



(*) 2"Wra«. SauiulcTS, 200. (c) 2 C. i- V. J 11. 



