OS 



HORSi; WAKKVNl Y. 



If servant 

 of horse 

 (li-nlor or 

 livpr\' 

 Ktnbl'o 

 kii-iK-r 

 wiirraiits 

 In' binds 

 his master. 



The aLovc cases may appear to bo somowliat 

 contradictory, and dillicult questions niiglit arise 

 as to who is a liorse dealer ; but tlie general prin- 

 ciple to be learned from them is that if the servant 

 or agent of a horse dealer waiTant, the master or 

 principal is bound, even if ho has told his servant 

 or agent not to warrant. On the liability of the 

 agent or servant of a dealer, Mr. Oliphaut says, 

 condensing the language of Mr. Justice Bayley (o), 

 "If the servant of a horse dealer with express 

 directions not to waiTant, do warrant, the master 

 is bound, because the servant having a general 

 authority to sell is in a condition to waiTant, and 

 the master has not notilied to the world that the 

 general authority is circumscribed.'' 



"Wlicro also a livery stable-keeper, having in 

 his stables a horse for the purjiose of sale, em- 

 powers his servant to sell it, but directs him not 

 to give a warranty, and the servant docs, neverthe- 

 less, warrant it, the master is liable on the ground 



that the 



-orvant, having 



a general authority to 



sell, the public cannot be supposed to be aware 

 what transpired iirivately between the master and 

 servant (;>). In all thc.'^e cases the sale was effected 

 by the servant in the usual course of business, and 

 it is necessary in such eases, if the master does not 

 wish to be bound, to give intimation to those who 

 deal with his servant. It is different where the 



(o) Pickering v. Hunk, l.")Ka«f, -l'). 



{p) Fcim V. Harriton, 3 T. K. '-u uud 7G0. 



