82 SALE AND MORTGAGE. 



reasonable service as a foal-getter and not to be satisfied 

 where eight mares out of fifty-five served were gotten with 

 foalJ=* 



29. Sale for Pood If one who sells an animal, knowing that 



the purchaser buys it for immediate slaughter and consump- 

 tion, is aware or has reason to suspect that it is in a diseased 

 and unwholesome condition, though the disease is not visible 

 externally, he is bound to disclose the fact to the purchaser.'^* 

 So in the sale of a quarter of beef from an animal slaughtered 

 for fear she would die, the fact that this was concealed from 

 the purchaser was held equivalent to a false suggestion that 

 she was sound, and the seller was liable for the deceit.''^ But 

 the seller of unwholesome beef is not liable in deceit unless he 

 knew of the unsoundness.'^® And where a farmer bought at 

 a market a dead pig for consumption and left it hanging up 

 and another person bought it from him without any warranty 

 and it did not appear that any secret defect was known to the 

 parties, it was held that no warranty of soundness was im- 

 plied. ^^ "The vendor was not a dealer in meat, did not know 

 that it was unfit for food, and the case was not that of a per- 

 son to whom an order is senLand who is bound to supply a 

 good and merchantable article." '^^ 



But there is an implied warranty in the sale of hogs pur- 

 chased for market that they are fit for that purpose, when the 

 purchaser has no opportunity of inspection and trusts to the 

 judgment of the seller to select them, both parties under- 



" McCorkell v. Karhoff, 90 la. S4S- And see Brown v. Doyle, 69 Minn. 

 543. Where a stallion is warranted to be a "sure foal-getter," evidence 

 may be given of what is the reasonable or usual percentage of mares that 

 a good or sure foal-getter will get with foal: Ibid. 



'* Divine v. McCormick, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 116. 



" Van Bracklin v. Fonda, 12 Johns (N. Y.) 468. 



" Emerson v. Brigham, 10 Mass. 197. 



" Burnby v. Bollett, 16 M. & W. 644. And see Emmerton v. Matthews, 

 7 H. & N. 586, where the seller was a general dealer; Benj Sales § 663 



" Benj. Sales § 662. 



