HORSK AVAUKANTY, 



55 



inquiry about warranly. If avc laid down for the 

 ilrst tirao thai tbo .servant of a private owner in- 

 trusted to sell and deliver a liorse on one par- 

 ticular occasion is therefore by law authorized to 

 bind bis master by a warranty, we should estab- 

 lish a precedent of dangerous consequence. For 

 the liability created by a warranty extending to 

 unknown as well as known defects, is greater 

 than is expected by persons inexperienced in hn\', 

 and as everything said by the seller in bargaining 

 may bo evidence of warranty to the effect of what 

 ho said, an unguarded conversation with an illi- 

 terate man sent to deliver a horse may be found 

 to have created a liability which would be a sui'- 

 prise equally to the servant and the master. We 

 therefore hold that the buyer, taking a w^arranty 

 from such an agent as was employed in this case, 

 takes it at the risk of being able to prove that he 

 had the principal's authority, and if there was no 

 authority in fact, the law does not, in our opinion, 



create it from the circumstance? 



It is unnecessary to add, that if the seller should 

 repudiate the warranty made by his agent, it 

 follows that the sale woidd be void, there being no 

 question raised on this point." 



This case was much commented on in Howard v. iloicardx. 

 Shcwavd [n). There, the plaintiff being at a riding 

 school, asked the proprietor "If he knew of a 



{») L. R., '1 C. r. l.')0. 



'"^/ictcard. 



