HORSE AVAURANTY. 59 



owner of a horso chooses to send a stranger with 

 a horso to a fair, with express instructions not to 

 warrant, for in that case the agent would be only 

 agent for one occasion, and the buyer would have 

 to ascertain whether the servant's authority was 

 limited or not. It may then bo taken that the Servant of 



, 1 , • private 



principal or master is bound by a warranty given owner in- 



by his agent or servant in all cases where such sell horse 



agent or servant is his general agent to caiTy on j);'';^,"^,! 



his business, even when such warranty is given authority 



' , 1 to warrant. 



contrary to express directions from the master. 

 On this point the dictum of Lord Abinger, in 

 Conifoof V. Foid-c {q), may be quoted. "Tut the 

 ordinary case of a servant employed to sell a horse, 

 but expressly forbidden to warrant him sound. Is 

 it contended that the buyer, induced by the war- 

 ranty to give ten times the price which he would 

 have given for an unsound horse, when ho dis- 

 covers the horse to be unsound, is not entitled to 

 rescind the contract ? This would be to say that 

 though the principal is not bound by the false 

 representation of an agent yet he is entitled to 

 take advantage of that false representation for the 

 purpose of obtaining a contract beneficial to him- 

 self, which he could not have obtained without it.'' 

 Although the piu'pose of this chapter is to treat 

 more particularly of warranty, still it should be 

 remembered that a contract respecting a horse, as 

 also any other contract, may be rescinded if cither 



i'j) 6 M. i- W. 3.38. Sec also Steward v. Cocsvcll, 1 C. & T. 23. 



