59 i DAMAGES ON EETQRXING A HORSE. 



In Ellis V. Chi/uwcJc, keep between may 7th and May oOth was not 

 asked for ; but Coleridge J. in his summing up, expressly said : 

 "All the plaintiff is allowed to do is to keep it for a reasonable 

 time, till he can fairly sell it, and for that time he ought to be allowed 

 for keeping it." 



Where in an action for the keep of a horse (Kinff v. Price) it ap- 

 peared that the defendant rescinded the contract entered into hy his ivife 

 for the sale of the horse same time after the contract was made, he was 

 taken to have rescinded it from the day it was entered into ; and as the 

 horse was kept by the plaintiff in the intermediate time, and was 

 received back by the defendant in improved condition, a verdict for the 

 value of such keep was confirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench. 



The question of damages, on returning a horse, was considered by Lord 

 Denman C.J. in Clar-e v, Maynard, where the plaintiff bought the horse 

 from the defendant at Northallerton Fair for £45, warranted sound, 

 and sold it with a similar warranty to Mr. Collins for £55, which the 

 plaintiff had been obliged to repay, along with £3 3s. for expenses. 

 The horse was sold by auction for £17 14s., and the plaintiff recovered 

 £27 6s. (the difference between that and £45), the expense of bringing 

 the horse to London, the keep of the horse from the time of the pur- 

 chase to the time of sale by auction, and £1 8s. Qd. part of an attorney's 

 charge for service of notice on defendant in Yorkshire (who had not 

 answered two letters on the subject) that the horse would be sold by 

 auction. His lordship disallowed £10 10s. repaid to Mr. Collins, as 

 well as £1 Is. for an examination at the Eoyal Veterinary College, 

 £1 Is. for counsel's opinion, and the attorney's charges for two letters 

 to the defendant, and for preparing a case for counsel. A new trial was 

 moved for, on the ground that the plaintiff should get the £10 extra, 

 not as the value of the good bargain he had lost, but as a remuneration 

 for the capital he had expended and the labour he had bestowed on the 

 horse to increase its value. The Court of Queen's Bench, however, 

 refused the rule, saying it was in substance a claim of compensation 

 for a good bargain, which could not be allowed as damages in an 

 action. 



"Where a horse ivas bought iviih a warranty of soundness, and turned 

 out not to he so, hut only Sgs. out of 12gs. had been paid hy the defend- 

 ant, Lord Kenyon C.J., on its being proved in an action for the 9gs., 

 that the horse at the time of the sale was only worth £1 lis. Gd., and 

 had since been sold for only 30s., held that the plaintiff could only re- 

 cover the value, and nonsuited the plaintiff {King v. Boston). It was 

 laid down in Power v. Welles, that where the contract is still open an 

 action for money had and received will not lie. The plaintiff had given 



