560 TROVER FOR A HORSE. 



"Middlesex to Herts on the ordinary affidavit, and brought back again, 

 the question \Yas wliether the horse had been bought by a person named 

 Grout on his own account or as agent for the plaintiff. Grout had 

 bought the horse of the defendant at Biggleswade Fair (Feb. 13, 1840) 

 witli a warranty, and told him at Royston Fair, on March 4th, that the 

 horse was unsound, and he must take him back. On March 5, the 

 plaintiff's attorney wrote in Middlesex a letter, posted in London, telling 

 defendant of the unsoundness, and saying that, unless the price was re- 

 turned, the horse would be sold, and he would become liable for the 

 difference. After this the horse stayed for some days at Grout's, in 

 Surrey, and food and stabling were paid for by the defendant at Enfield, 

 in Middlesex. On March 11th, the horse was sold by the plaintiff ; and 

 in an action for the difference between the two sales and the expenses of 

 the keep and resale, it was held, on the point being reserved, that pay- 

 ment in Middlesex of the keep of the horse after notice of unsoundness 

 was sufficient to satisfy the undertaking, as such evidence was material 

 to the damages. And per Parlce B. : " The case of Collins v. JenMns 

 shows that the evidence to be given under an undertaking like the 

 present is not confined to the mere issue in the cause, but includes also 

 the question of damages, which are to be considered for this purpose as 

 a matter in issue between the parties. Here part of the amount claimed 

 and recovered by the plaintiff was paid in Middlesex, and that payment 

 was good evidence on the question whether the sum claimed was a 

 reasonable amount or not. If the case had stood merely on the letter, 

 there would have been considerable doubt." 



It was observed by Jervis C.J., in Read v. Fairlanlcs, that " in ordi- 

 imry cases of trover for a horse, ihe plaintiff recovers the value of the horse, 

 and not tchat it might have earned desides." Maule J. mentioned a case 

 of trover for a cow, where the value not only of the cow, but also of her 

 milk, was claimed; and added, "I rather think that the value of the 

 thing at the time of the conversion is all that can be recovered." And 

 again, on the question of damages, his lordship said : " Although it be 

 true that in trover the owner may recover for the conversion of the 

 improved chattel, it does not follow that he is entitled to recover the 

 improved value as damages. Tlte j)ropei' amount of damages is the 

 amount of pecuniary loss which the plaintiffs have been put to by the 

 defendant's conduct. My brother Parhe has said that a plaintiff may 

 recover special damages in trover. That was where money had been 

 necessarily laid out in consequence of a conversion (/?>.)." The case 

 alluded to by the learned judge was that of Davis v. Osicell, which was 

 one of trover for a pony value £lo, and the special damage alleged in 

 the declaration was that after the conversion of the pony by the defend- 



