540 AUTHORITY OF AGENT TO BIND PRINCIPAL. 



general agent employed for a princijial to carry on his Lnsiness, that is 

 the business of horse-dealing, in which case there would be by law the 

 authority here contended for. 



" But the facts of the present case do not bring the defendant within 

 this rule, as he was not shown to carry on any trade of dealing in 

 horses. It was also, contended that a special agent without any express 

 authority in fact might have an authority by law to bind his principal ; 

 as where a principal holds out that the agent has such authority, and 

 induces a party to deal with him on the faith that it is so. In such a 

 case, the principal is concluded from denying this authority as against 

 the party, who believed what was held out, and acted on it {Pickering 

 V. Busl', 15 East, 38). But the facts do not bring the defendant within 

 this rule. The main reliance was placed on the argument that an 

 authority to sell is by implication an authority to do all that in the 

 usual course of a sale is required to be answered, and that therefore the 

 defendant by implication gave to Greig an authority to answer that 

 question, and to bind him by his answer. It was a part of this argu- 

 ment, that an agent authorised to sell and deliver a horse is held out to 

 the buyer as having authority to warrant. But on this point also the 

 plaintiff has in our judgment failed. 



" We are aware that the question of warranty frequently arises upon 

 the sale of horses, but we are also aware that sales may be made with- 

 out any warranty or even inquiry about wan-anty. If we laid down for 

 the first time that the servant of a private owner entrusted to sell and 

 deliver a horse on one particular occasion is therefore by law authorised 

 to bind his master by a warranty, we should establish a precedent of 

 dangerous consequence. For the liability created by a warranty ex- 

 tending to unknown as well as known defects is greater than is expected 

 by persons inexperienced in law ; and as everytliing said by the seller in 

 the bargaining may be evidence of warranty to the effect of what he 

 said, an unguarded conversation with an illiterate man sent to deliver a 

 horse may be found to have created a liability, which would be a surprise 

 equally to the servant and the master. Wc therefore hold that a buyer 

 taking a warranty from such an agent as was employed in this case, 

 takes it at the risk of being able to prove that he had the principal's 

 authority, and if there was no authority in fact, the law from the cir- 

 cumstances does not in our opinion create it. 



" When the facts raise the question, it will be time enough to decide 

 the liability created by such a servant as a foreman alleged to be a 

 general agent, or such a special agent as a person entrusted with the 

 sale of a horse in a fair or other public mart where stranger meets 

 stranger, and the usual course of business is for the person in posses- 



