OF PURCHASE AM) SAM-:, KTC. 07 



a commerf'iiil country like (rrcat ]3ntain, heon 

 laid on tlio need of upliolding- tlio principle of Notpm- 

 guaranteo or warranty, that legal cases have so gh4 imy 

 far estaLlished a different doctrine as to make it ^•''jef",'.V' 

 unsafe, especially in selling- horses, to give a ^\ar- Patent, 

 ranty, even after both parties have discussed 

 defects or blemishes in the horse the subject 

 of the bargain. 



The cases at law are not free from apparent 

 contradiction on this point. In an old case, I)or- 

 rington v. Edtcards (c), an action Avas brought on 

 the warranty of a horse as sound, but which was 

 in fact at the time of sale lame from shouldertie. 

 It was contended the action would not lie, be- 

 cause the defect was patent. The judges, how- 

 ever, ruled that as the defendant insisted upon 

 warranting the horse sound, the defendant was 

 bound. " The defendant said I Avill wan-ant him 

 sound, that is the distinction where the defect is 

 visible." Lichhird v. Kain {<!) is quoted, as if it J-j'^:'">'<^ v. 

 supported the doctrine that a general warranty 

 guarantees the buyer even against every sort of 

 defect, manifestly visible at the time of sale, but 

 this is not so. There Liddard, the seller, when 

 selling tAvo horses to Kain^ the buyer, told him 

 that one of them had a cold; but, nevertheless, 

 he warranted the horses as " sound and free from 

 blemish at the end of a fortnight." When that 



(c) 2 Rolle, 188. {(l) 2 Bingham, 183. 



f2 



