5G IIOKSK U AUll VMY. 



horse that would Lo likely to suit him," aiul tlio 

 ])roth(>r of the dcfeiulant Slieward, a liorso dealer, 

 who happeued to be presout, aud who oecasionally 

 acted in the sale of horses for the defendant, said 

 "he thought the latter had one." Tlie horse was 

 brought to the riding school and ridden by the 

 plaintiff; and the defendant's brother, in answer 

 to questions as to the soundness of the animal, 

 said, "I'll guarantee the horse is sound." The 

 horse was then examined by a veterinary surgeon, 

 and pronounced sound, and it was bought by the 

 l»laintiff for 'iloL The horse, however, after tnal, 

 proving to be unsound, was sold by the plaintill", 

 and an action brought to recover the difference 

 in the price. ]']rle, ('. J., ruled that the brother, 

 as servant of the defendant, a horse dealer, had 

 authority to warrant, and the jury, finding he had 

 done so and that there was a breach of the war- 

 ranty, a verdict was entered for the jilaintilf. 

 Upon a new trial being moved for, it was refused, 

 and the Court held that if the servant of a horse 

 dealer gives a warranty, notwithstanding that ho 

 is expressly directed not to warrant, the master is 

 bound; the reason being that in the ordinary 

 course of business the servant enjoys a general 

 authf)rity to sell, and that such autJiorit}', unless 

 notice is given to the contrary, implies the power 

 to warrant. 



In his judgmi'iil ^fr. Justice "Willes Miy.><, "It 

 appeared that l)avid Showard (the drfcmlaut's 



