HOUSE WAUIIAM Y. 



refer to a general agent employed for his prin- 

 cipal to carry on his business, that is, the business 

 of horse dcalinp:, in which case there would be by 



law tlio authority hrro contended for 



But it is also contended that a special agent witli- 

 out any express autliority, in fact, might have an 

 autliority by law t<j bind liis principal, as where 

 the principal holds out that the agent has such 

 authority, and induces a party to deal with liim on 

 the faith that it is so. In such a case the jirin- 

 cipal is excluded from denying this autliority as 

 against the party who believed what was held out, 

 and acted on it ; but the facts do not bring the 

 defendant witldn this rule. The main reliance 

 was placed on the argument that an authority to 

 sell is by implicafion an authority to do all that 

 in the usual course of selling is required to com- 

 plete a sale, and that the question of waiTanty 

 is, in the usual course of a sale, required to bo 

 answered; and that, therefore, the defendant, by 

 implication, gave to his bailiif an authority to 

 answer that question, and to bind him by his 

 answer. It -was a part of this argument that an 

 agent authorized to sell and deliver a horse is 

 held out to the buyer as having authority to war- 

 rant. But on this ])oint also the ]>lalntifr has, in 

 our judgnu-nt, failed. "\Ve are aware that the 

 question of wananty frequently arises upon tho 

 sale of horses, ])ut we are also aware that sales 

 may be made without any waiTanty, or even an 



