526 WAHEANTY OF SEED. 



contained in such clause {Lltntdaff and Canlon Dit^lrirl AfarM, Company 

 appts. y. Li/tulon resp.) 



Warrant iiuj i urn q) seed to he rai)e seed. — An action by seed merchant 

 lies against seed brokers for falsely warranting turnip seed to be rape 

 seed, although it was sold by sample, and was of greater value than 

 turnip seed, the phiintiff having sustained actual loss and injury in his 

 business, fi-om having resold it as rape seed, and having to compensate 

 his customers. {Lovcgrove v. Fisher.) 



Warraniij of seed. — In Plnder appt. v. Button resp., the action was 

 for damages sustained by the appellant having contracted to sell to the 

 respondent a quantity of mangold-wurzel seed warranted to be of good 

 growing stock, and having delivered seed not according to such war- 

 ranty. Tlie memorandum signed by appellant was merely, " Sold Mr. 

 Button half a ton of yellow mangold wurzcl seed, at 9d. a lb., for the 

 latter end of the year." Kespondent was allowed to give parol evi- 

 dence that appellant said the seed was to be sown by himself, and be of 

 " good growing stock." Several of respondent's customers were called 

 to prove that the seed was " unproductive and worth nothing," and 

 there was some evidence, although the appellant denied it, that the 

 seed when delivered by the appellant was kiln-dried, and therefore in- 

 jured. It was admitted that the season of 1860, when the bargain was 

 made, was very wet and unfavourable, and also that there was no 

 i'raud. For the appellant, it was contended that there was no war- 

 ranty, and no evidence of the quality or unproductiveness of the seed. 

 The learned judge of the Lincoln County Court ruled "that there 

 was necessarily an implied warranty that the seed would grow," and 

 gave a £50 verdict for the respondent ; and The Court of Queen's 

 Bench gave judgment for the appellant. And j;e?- Coclclurn C.J. ; "It 

 does not appear that the seed delivered was dead or bad, or had wholly 

 lost its character as seed, but only that it had a defective germinative 

 or reproductive power. We are not called on to decide whether on a 

 general contract for seed there is an implied warranty that it is growing 

 seed. This is not such a contract ; it is a special contract for such seed 

 as the appellant should raise from seed ' of a good growing stock.' It is 

 not denied that the seed he delivered was fairly raised from such seed " of 

 a good growing stock ;" and there being an express warranty, there can 

 be no warranty implied beyond it. It was agreed that the appellant should 

 sow a certain quantity of mangold wurzel seed on his own land of * a good 

 growing stock,' and should sell the respondent the seed raised therefrom. 

 There is nothing to show that he has not done so ; and if so, the only 

 warranty he gave has been complied with. The judgment of the 

 County Court, therefore, was wrong, and this appeal must be allowed." 



