HORSE WAHHANTY. 63 



vant was in tlio liahit of selling horses for his 

 employer, and, as will ho seen from the ease of 

 Ilouard v. Shcirar(l{h), the law is more stringent 

 against horse dealers than it is against private 

 o\Miers. 



Where warranties are given by agents, without 

 express authority to do so, the general rule is, 

 " that the agent is authorized to do whatever is 

 usual to carry out the object of his agency, and it 

 is a question for the jury to determine what is 

 usual" (/). The important judgment of Chief 

 Justice Erie, in the case of Brad;/ v. Todd (ni), 

 will throw much light on the point. In that case, if buyer 

 the defendant was not a horse dealer, but a trades- rji^ty from 

 man in London, havino; a farm in Essex. The •!'^"''^1k„* 



' o onus that 



plaintiff sent to him for a horse, and the de- seryaut 

 fendant sent his farm bailiff with a horse with cipai's 

 authority to sell, but no authority to warrant, on buyer. 

 Nevertheless, the bailiff waiTanted the horse to be 

 sound and quiet in harness. The horse not being 

 so, an action for breach of warranty was brought, 

 and the plaintiff's contention was that " an autho- 

 rity to sell imports an authority to warrant." 

 After referring to the earlier cases, and among 

 others to that of Foni v. Harrison («), Chief Jus- 

 tice Erie said: "We understand these judges to 



(/•) L. R., 2 C. P. 150, and post, p. 65. 

 (/) Benj. on Sales, 2nd cd. p. 508. 

 (m) 9 C. B., N. S. .392 ; 29 L. J., C. V. H4. 

 [n) 3 T. R. 757. 



