HORSE WAUIIANTY. 66 



tlio purc'liascr to prolonj^: tho trial (c). If A. tlio 

 Luyor of a liorso with a waiTanty, resells the 

 animal witli the same wan-anty, ho can, if sued 

 by his subvendoo 13., recover tho costs of defend- 

 ing the action of 13., from his vendor C, as 

 special damaf^es, provided A. has informed C. of 

 tho first action, and offered C. tlio option of de- 

 fending it (,/'). 



It is sometimes difficult to determine Avlietlier 

 an action on tlie failure of a horse deal sliould 

 be an action on the contract, or in tort. The 

 powers of amendment, in plaints, are now so largo 

 that tho point is not of so much consequence as 

 fomierly ; still, in a large matter, it is as well to 

 be careful. The point is very ably treated in the 

 notes to Chandoloi' v. Lopus {(/). If a warranty is 

 intended and there is a breachj there is good cause 

 of action, whether the defendant knew of the fault 

 or not, but if only a representation was meant at 

 the time of sale, the plaintiff must show that the 

 defendant knew the representation made at time 

 of sale was a false one. 



(e) Adam v. Richards, 2 H. BI. 573. 



(/) Lewis V. Peakc, 7 Taunton, 153; sec also Wrightupv. 

 Chamberlain, 7 Scott, 'j98. 

 G?) 1 Smith's L. C. 17o, Stli cd. 



