WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ACCEPTANCE. 579 



length : "With regard to the question of compensation, assuming that 

 they found for the plaintiflP, it -n'ould " (his Lordship said) " be a matter 

 for consideration whether they should find a verdict in respect of the 

 700 sheep, for which the packages were sold, or whether in respect of 

 the whole. He observed that, although the damages were laid at 

 £1,700, he thought if the jury found for the plaintiff, £1,400 would 

 be sufficient to cover the loss. The decision must be founded on 

 whether this was a ' reasonable, fit, and proper ' composition to be used, 

 according to the directions on the package, for dipping sheep. If they, 

 turning the matter over in their minds, thought that the result could 

 not be reasonably attributed to any other cause than the impropar 

 composition, then they ought to find their verdict for the plaintiff. 

 But if the plaintiff had not made that out to their satisfaction, then 

 they ought to return their verdict for the defendant." The jury 

 returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £1,400. 



Where there is no contract a veterinary surgeon must go upon a 

 qiicmtum meruit [Sewell v. Coi'p) ; and in the same case Best C.J. 

 refused to receive in evidence, as coming from a body not known to 

 the law, a certificate of the Royal Veterinary College of attendance 

 at lectures. It was held by Lord Ellenborough C.J. that, under a 

 general count for work, labour, and materials, a farrier may recover for 

 attendances and medicines administered in the cure of a horse {Clark v. 

 Mumford). 



What constitutes an accei)tance was very much considered in Elmore v. 

 Stone, which was an action by a livery-stable keeper to recover the price 

 of a pair of carriage horses for which he had asked the defendant ISOgs. 

 The defendant declined at the time to give that, but afterwards sent to 

 say that "the horses were his; but as he had neither servant nor stable, 

 the plaintiflF must keep them at livery for him," and the latter accord- 

 ingly removed them out of his sale stable into another. 31ansfield C.J. 

 thought there was a sufficient delivery, but reserved the point, and the 

 jury found for the plaintiff. The Court of King's Bench discharged 

 the rule for a nonsuit, as they considered that the horses were com- 

 pletely the horses of the defendant, and that when they stood at the 

 plaintiff's stables they were in effect in the defendant's possession. 



The case of Carter v. Toussaint was also a sale on credit ; and as in 

 Tenvpest v. Fitzgerald, the 'purchaser had exercised various acts of oivner- 

 ship over the horse. The facts were as follows : The plaintiffs, who 

 were farriers, sold the defendant, by a verbal contract, which specified 

 no time of payment, a race-horse for £30. It required firing at the 

 time, which was done in the presence and with the consent of the defen- 

 dant, who agreed with the plaintiffs to keep the horse for 21 days, free 



p p 2 



