HOUSE -WAKKANrY. h7 



brother) had before occasionally assisted the de- 

 fendant in the sale of horses. Is it then part of 

 the business of a horse dealer to warrant horses 

 which he sells? No doubt .... it was 

 an ostensible authority, which could not be nega- 

 tived by showing a secret understanding between 

 the horse dealer and his servant that the latter 

 was not to warrant. The case of Bradij v. Todd 

 sustains that proposition. The Court there de- 

 dined to extend the rule to a single transaction 

 of sale by the servant of a private individual, 

 because in such a case the buyer has no right to 

 presume any authority in the servant beyond that 

 which is apparent on the particular occasion." 



The judgment, however, of IMr. Justice Byles 

 is so terse and clear, as reported, that it is given 

 in full. After referring to the case of Ih'adij v. 

 Todd above quoted, he says : " The rule to be 

 deduced from that case is this : if the servant of, 

 or agent of, any private individual entrusted on 

 one occasion to sell a horse — without authority 

 from his master takes upon himself to warrant 

 the soundness of the animal, the master is not 

 bound ; but if the servant of a horse dealer, or 

 even one who only occasionally assists him in his 

 business, being employed to sell, gives a warranty, 

 the principal is bound, even though the agent or 

 servant was expressly forbidden not to warrant. 

 In such a case there is ostensible authority to do 

 that which is usual in the conduct of the business 

 of a horse dealer. 



