OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 239 
tract, without returning the horse to the seller, 
or without even giving him notice of the unsound- 
ness or viciousness of the horse; yet it will raise 
a prejudice against the buyer’s evidence, if he does 
not give notice within a reasonable time that he 
has reasons to be dissatisfied with his bargain.’’ 2° 
It has often been held that the implied warranty 
does not bind in respect of obvious and patent 
defects.?# 
193. Warranty of Soundness. There is an old 
doctrine of the common law which applies espe- 
cially to the sale of animals—‘‘Caveat emptor,”’ 
that is ‘‘let the buyer beware.’’ It may be said 
that the basis of the doctrine, as applied to the 
sale of animals, is to be found in the idea that men 
are equally learned and equally ignorant relative 
to animals. Unless there has been an evident at- 
tempt to conceal a defect, or there has been made 
an express warranty as to character and sound- 
ness, there has generally been an agreement in 
the decisions to the effect that the purchaser of 
animals must run his own risks. Sometimes the 
principle has been overworked to a ridiculous de- 
gree. The selling of a glandered horse was not 
considered an illegal act at the common law, even 
when the seller knew the condition.*4* Where a 
trade has been made, and one of the parties thus 
got rid of a glandered animal, it was held that in 
so doing he was not guilty of such fraudulent act 
as would require surrender on replevin of the 
23 Chitty’s Blackstone, II, 24a Hill v. Ball, 2 H. & N. 
451, note 22. 298. 
24 Chitty’s Blackstone, II, 
451, note 22, citing cases. 
