4-S6 WARRANTY OF SEED. . 



able ill the inarkot as ' Calcutta linseed.' If he got an article so adul- 

 terated as not reasonably to ansAver that description, he did not get 

 what he bargained for. As if a man buys an article as gold, which 

 everyone knows requires a certain amount of alloy, he cannot be said to 

 get gold if he gets an article so depreciated in quality as to consist of 

 gold only to the extent of one carat." 



In Toulniin v. Hedldj, which was a case of the same class, Cressivcll J. 

 ruled that icliere a party huijs a specific cargo of guano, expected hy a par- 

 iicidar ship, and warranted to le of a particidar quality, he has a right 

 on the arrival of the ship to inspect such cargo before it is delivered to 

 him, in order to ascertain whether the warranty has been complied 

 witli, and if it has not, he may reject the cargo altogether ; but if the 

 cargo be once delivered to him, he has no right to return it on the 

 ground that it does not correspond with the warranty. 



The defendant in Hooper v. Treffry asked the plaintiffs to find him a 

 "customer for his dark ; and one was found ivho agreed to purchase it, if 

 equal to the sample. It was shipped, and the defendant sent the plaintiffs 

 the invoice, and requested them to accept a bill of exchange for the price, 

 which they did on the offer of a del, credere commission. The bark not 

 being equal to the sample, the customer refused to accept it, and the 

 plaintiffs were called on to pay the bill when due. It was urged for the 

 defendant that there was no privity between him and the plaintiffs, but 

 the Court of Exchequer held that they were entitled to recover the 

 amount of the bill in an action for money paid to the defendant's use. 

 And see Johnstone v. TJsliorne and Heisch v. Carrington. 



The first of the leading cases upon seed not ansivering its warranty 

 was that of Poidfon v. Lattimore, where the action was brought to 

 recover the value of eight quarters of sainfoin seed, sold by the plaintiff 

 to the defendant at £3 per quarter, and warranted good new growing 

 seed. It was proved that soon after it was bought it was examined and 

 tasted by a man of good skill, who said it was bad growing seed. This 

 opinion was not communicated to the plaintiff, but part of the seed was 

 sown and the rest sold to two witnesses, who proved it was worthless, 

 and said they would not pay for it. The plaintiff contended that as the 

 defendant had adopted the contract in part by selling and sowing the 

 seed, he was bound to adopt it altogether, and could not insist on the 

 breach of warranty as a defence to tlie action. The jury found for 

 the defendant, on the ground that the seed did not correspond with the 

 warranty, which was the only question at the trial. The Court of 

 King's Bench discharged a rule to enter a verdict for tlie plaintiff for 

 the value of the seed, and held that as the i)laintiff gave an express 

 warranty that it was good growing seed, the defendant might without 



