ANIMALS BOUGHT FOR A SPECIAL PUrPOSE. 81 



that he expected the wife to rely upon his representations ta 

 the husband.®^ 



A warranty on the sale of a horse of a certain breed is to 

 be interpreted with reference to that breed, and if the horse 

 has the capacity of a good foal-getter of that breed, the war- 

 ranty is fulfilled, though the potency of that breed is much 

 less than that of other breeds.*® So where a horse warranted 

 to be an "imported Clydesdale" is sold for breeding purposes, 

 there is no implied warranty of fitness for such purposes.®* 

 And where a bull is purchased for breeding purposes to the 

 seller's knowledge, both parties being alike destitute of the 

 means of forming an intelligent judgment as to the ability 

 to generate, and there is no misrepresentation or fraud or ex- 

 press warranty, no warranty can be implied.^" 



On the other hand, it has been held that where producers 

 of and dealers in horses for breeding purposes sell one to a 

 person who, to their knowledge, wishes him for such pur- 

 poses, there is an implied warranty that the horse is reason- 

 ably fit for such purposes;''^ and that he is not prevented 

 through illness, weakness or other infirmities from being able 

 to exercise his breeding qualities.^^ And a warranty that a 

 stallion is "sound and healthy and, with proper handling, a 

 foal-getter," was held to be a warranty that he could do' 



" Carter v. Harden, 78 Me. 528. And see Adams v. Snyder (Kan. 

 App.), 55 Pac. Rep. 498. 



" Glidden v. Pooler, 50 111. App. 36. 



A bill of sale merely guaranteeing a stallion to be a breeder excludes 

 a guarantee of his being pure-bred: First Nat. Bk. v. Hughes (Cal.), 46 

 Pac. Rep. 272. 



"Taylor v. Gardiner, 8 Ma. 310. And see Scott v. Renick, i B. Mon> 

 (Ky.) 63. 



" McQuaid v. Ross, 85 Wis. 492. And see White v. Stelloh, 74 id. 435,. 

 cited in § 27, supra. 



But where the seller knew the bull to be without power of propagation; 

 and did not disclose that fact, he is liable in an action of deceit: May- 

 nard v. Maynard, 49 Vt. 297. 



" Merch. & Mech.'s Sav. Bk. v. Fraze, 9 Ind. App. 161. 



" Budd V. McLaughlin, 10 Ma. 75. 

 6 



