GENERAL NATURE OF A WARRANTY, ETC. 77 



the purchaser can see only the effects of a disease which is 

 explained away by the seller as an insignificant or temporary 

 one, but is, in reality, of a more serious nature, such a disease 

 is not obvious so as to be excluded from the operation of a 

 general warranty.** Thus, an express warranty against all un- 

 soundness in a horse covers all defects arising from a disease 

 of the kidneys or spine, where they are not apparent to the 

 eye, though ^symptoms of the disease are apparent but not 

 known as such to the purchaser.*^ As some splints cause 

 lameness and others do not, a splint is not one of those patent 

 defects against which a warranty is inoperative.*^ As in- 

 stances of other patent defects not covered by a warranty may 

 be cited the fact that a horse is deaf or moon-eyed or spav- 

 ined,*^ or a crib-biter.** But if a defect is discoverable only 

 by the exercise of skill it is not so patent as to be excluded 

 from the operation of the warranty.*^ And where the buyer 

 suspects a defect and wishes to make an examination, but the 



" Chadsey v. Greene, 24 Conn. 562; Perdue v. Harwell, 80 Ga. 150. The 

 knowledge of the seller seems to have been a factor in each of these cases. 

 See also Connell v. McNett, 109 Mich. 329; Nauman v. Ullman (Wis.), 

 78 N. W. Rep. 159. 



" Storrs V. Emerson, 72 la. 390. And see Shewalter v. Ford, 34 Miss. 

 417, cited in § 33, infra. 



" Pollock, C. B., in Smith v. O'Bryan, 11 L. T. N. S. 346, following 

 Margetson v. Wright, i M. & Scott, 622; 8 Bing. 454, in which latter 

 case the jury had found that the horse, which afterwards became lame, 

 had the seeds of unsoundness upon him arising from the splint at the time 

 of the sale. See also the earlier decision in Margetson v. Wright, reported 

 in 5 M. & P. 606. 



" Hoffman v. Oates, 77 Ga. 701. But see as to spavin, Watson v. Den- 

 ton, 7 C. & P. 85, cited in § 34, infra. 



" Margetson v. Wright, S M. & P. 606. And see Dean v. Morey, 33 la. 

 120; Walker v. Hoisington, 43 Vt. 608; Paul v. Hardwick, i Chit. Contr., 

 nth Am. ed. 655; Oliph. Horses (sth ed.) 75; Broennenburgh v. Hay- 

 cock, Holt 630; Scholefield v. Robb, 2 M. & Rob. 210. 



Cf. Washburn v. Cuddihy, 8 Gray (Mass.) 430. See § 34, infra. 



" House V. Fort, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 293, where the horse wanted the sight 

 of one eye. And see Butterfield v. Burroughs, i Salk. 211. 



"The meaning of a horse being sold "with all his faults' is, that the pur- 

 chaser shall make use of his eyes and understanding to discover what 



