HOUSE WARllWTY. CI 



raents, all of wliicli are absolutely false, as where 

 two defoiulants told the buyer that certain horses 

 were then the property of a lady and had been 

 ridden by a lad}^ and never belonged to a horse 

 dealer, thereby inducing the buyer to purchase the 

 horses for his daughter by statements not one of 

 which were true, Ji. v. Kenrk-k (./•). In former 

 times, the method of obtaining a remedy in cases 

 of breach of warranty, was by action of deceit. 

 Much useful information, even for modern actions, 

 may be gained by perusing chapter xv. Selwyn's 

 Nisi Prius, vol. 1, 11th edition, p. G4;5, on Deceit. 

 A mere naked lie is not actionable ; the deceit 

 that is actionable, though possibly not so common 

 now by an action of deceit, is some lie or false 

 statement made knowingly with a design to injure, 

 cheat, or deceive another person ; but on an action 

 for a breach of a general warranty, it is not neces- 

 sary to prove a knowingly false statement. 



In selling horses it is not unusual, when doing .Sale of a 

 so by auction or private sale, to state that they are ..with aii 

 sold "with all faidts," or, "take him as he is, f-'"!*"-" 

 subject to a veterinary inspection." In such case 

 the seller is not bound to point out or disclose 

 defects in the horse. At one time it was supposed 

 that the law was otherwise, but in Bacjichole v. 

 Walter {y), Lord Ellenborough, after refusing to 

 subscribe to McJJi^h v. MotfeaH.c, said "where an 

 article is sold 'with all faults,' I tliink it is quite 



(j) o Q. B. 49 ; 2 D. i: M. 208. (;/) 3 Camp. lo6. 



