78 llORSK M AUKANTY. 



Jones V. Jusfy and so far as liorso dealing is con- 

 corned, the rule of law may l)o described thus : — 

 if a buyer i»iu'cliase by writing a carri;ige lioi*so or 

 a riding horse which he has not seen, and has had 

 no np])ort unity of seeing, tlie seller cannot pass off 

 an animal that is not tit for the purpose indicated 

 by the order of purchase. The seller is bound to 

 supply an animal reasonably suited for the buyer's 

 use. At the same tiiue the seller is not bound to de- 

 liver the animal fit to the buyer ; he is only boimd to 

 sell a horse answering the conditions specified as 

 wanted by tlie purchaser, and if the horse leaves 

 the seller's possession in the state the implied war- 

 ranty guarantees, the seller is not liable for in- 

 juries or deterioration in transit (''). 

 Distinction A distinction shoidd be drawn between patent 

 defects dcfects causcd by disease, accident or overwork 

 acekkut^ and those which are natural or only malforma- 

 ''"'* , tions with which the horse was born. A wai-ranty 



uatural. _ , '' 



will be of no use against malfonuations, however 

 detrimental they may bo to a horse's action or 

 health. For instance, a horse may have such badly- 

 made .'shoulders as to cause the aninuil to move 

 very short and trip constantly, or a lioi-se may 

 be cow-hocked to a degree which will interfere 

 with the action of his hind legs. These ai"e cer- 

 tainly patent defects, but not of the character now 



(i) 3 L. R., Q. B. 197 ; nnd Bull v. liobinsoH, 8 Jurist. N. S. 

 870; 10 Ex. :M-'. 



