274 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
that the animals are reasonably fit and suitable 
for the work which they are hired to perform, if 
the same is known to the bailor.6 It is thus his 
duty to notify of vicious propensities, and he is 
liable for the vicious act of his horse if he failed to 
give notice.° But when the bailor warned the 
bailee of the horse’s habit of kicking, and the 
bailee did not use a kicking strap, it was held that 
the bailor was not liable for injury sustained.?° 
A distinction must be recognized between negli- 
gence and fraud or deceit. The bailor makes no 
implied warranty that his animals are fit to do 
more than that for which they are hired. If aman 
should engage a span of horses to drive for a fore- 
noon, and should take a span of roadsters and 
hitch them to a plow for the breaking of land, a 
purpose for which they were not fitted, and were 
not hired, the bailee would be held strictly liable 
for the full amount of damage sustained by the 
team, for he practiced fraud and deception in the 
transaction.'! No superficial technicality of words 
would relieve him. Were he to plead that he en- 
gaged the horses for driving, but that he did not 
say where he was going to drive them, or hitched 
to what kind of a rig, and that therefore he had 
not used them for a purpose otherwise than they 
had been hired, such a plea would doubtless be 
held only to indicate the greater degree of fraud 
8 Bass v. Cantor, 123 Ind. 
444, 24 N. E. 147; Leach v. 
French, 69 Me. 389; Harring- 
ton v. Snyder, 3 Barb. 380. 
® Campbell v. Page, 67 Barb. 
118; Mayer v. Kloepfer, 69 
Atl. 182; Robbins v. Magoon & 
Kimball Co. 153 N. W. 13; 
Kissan v. Jones, 56 Hun, 432. 
10 Ohlweiler v. Lohmann, 82 
Wis. 198, 52 N. W. 172. 
11 Lockwood v. Bull, 1 Cow. 
322. 
