188 WARRANTY OF SKIRVING's SWEDES, 



and an invoice was sent shortly afterwards. In a few days another 

 parcel of turnip seed was sold by Reed to the plaintiffs, Reed stating 

 it to be of the " same stock " as the former, and calling it Skirvincj's 

 Swedes. No bought or sold note was given on this occasion, and the 

 invoice described the seed as 24^ quarters of turnips. In May, 1851, 

 samples of both parcels were sown ; the crop partly failed, and of those 

 plants which made their appearance, the greater part were not of the 

 description of turnip called Slcirvimfs, but of a spurious and inferior 

 kind. The defendant contended that the sold note did not amount to 

 a warranty, but merely contained a representation that the first parcel 

 of seed was SkirvhKjs Swedes, and also that there was no evidence for 

 the jury that the second parcel had been warranted to be Sldrving's 

 S/redrs, the invoice describing the seed merely as 24j quarters of 

 turnips. Lord CampMl C.J. overruled both objections, and the jury 

 found for the plaintiff for the value of the seed, with leave reserved to 

 move to reduce the damages by the value of the second parcel, if the 

 Court thought there was no evidence for the jury of that parcel having 

 been sold under the warranty of its being Skirving's Swedes, and the 

 Court of Queen's Bench refused to disturb the verdict. Lord Campbell 

 C.J. said : " As regards the first parcel, I adhere to the opinion which 

 I expressed at the. trial, that the statement in the sold note amounted 

 to a warranty that the seed was Slcirving's Swedes. I also agree with 

 the rest of the Court, in thinking, with respect to the second parcel, 

 that there was evidence for the jury of the defendant having warranted 

 them also to be SMrving's Swedes. It is clear that the invoices did 

 not form the contract. There was a previous verbal contract for the 

 sale of the second parcel ; and the defendant's agent having stated that 

 the second parcel was of the same stock as the first, that statement 

 became part of the contract." 



In Page (Exor.) v. Paveg the plaintiff sued defendant on a breach 

 of warranty on tlie sale of old com udieal, and the declaration contained 

 a special count, which stated a warranty that the wheat would grow, 

 and a breach that it would not grow, and that the plaintiff was deprived 

 of great gains from the corn and straw. The declaration also contained 

 counts for money had and received, and on an account stated, and the 

 particulars of demand were for the price of the wheat, but expressly 

 limited to the ■indebitatus counts. It was objected for the defendant 

 that the particulars tied down the plaintiff to £6 19.v. Gd., the price of 

 the seed ; but Patteson J, considered that the particulars only applied to 

 the common counts, to which they were expressly limited, and that this 

 did not prevent the plaintiff from giving evidence of what the value of 

 the crops might have been, with a view to his damages on the first count. 



