SAMi FOR FOOD. 83 



Standing for what they are intended^* And one seUing the 

 carcass of a hog at the highest market price for pork, im- 

 pliedly warrants that it is not a boar, if the buyer did not 

 know the fact.*" 



But an implied warranty that meat is fit for food "does not 

 ,extend beyond the case of a dealer who sells provisions di- 

 rectly to the consumers for domestic use," so would not apply 

 to the case of a farmer who sells a cow to retail butchers, 

 though he knows they buy her for the purpose of cutting her 

 up into beef for immediate domestic use.®^ 



After a butcher had given notice to a market-man that "the 

 weather was bad for killing and he should kill no hogs in that 

 weather unless ordered," but, "if ordered, would kill and send 

 one to the market the next morning," the market-man or- 

 dered of him a good hog to be killed that night and delivered 

 the next morning. It was held that, if he executed the order 

 with due care, he could recover the value of the pork as if 

 sound, although it spoiled during the night by reason of the 

 weather.*^ 



The ofifense of selling unwholesome provisions is made out 

 by proof of the sale of the flesh of an animal which the seller 

 knew to have a disease, the tendency of which is to affect the 

 flesh in any degree, though the taint is imperceptible to the 

 senses and eating the meat produces no apparent injury.** 



" Best V. Flint, 58 Vt. 543. See Warren v. Buck, cited infra. 



"° Burch V. Spencer, 15 Hun (N. Y.) 504. 



" Howard v. Emerson, no Mass. 320. And see to the same effect 

 Giroux V. Stedman, 145 id. 439; Goldrich v. Ryan, 3 E. D. Sra. (N. Y.) 

 324; Cotton V. Reed, 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 380; Needham v. Dial, 4 Tex. Civ. 

 App. 141; Hanson v. Hartse, 70 Minn. 282; Wiedeman i/. Keller, 171 111. 93; 

 Warren v. Buck (Vt.), 42 Atl. Rep. 979. Contra, Hoover v. Peters, 18 

 Mich. 51, where the warranty is held to extend to a case of sale "by a re- 

 tail dealer or any other person." 



"^ Mattoon v. Rice, 102 Mass. 236. °' Goodrich v. Peo., 19 N. Y. 574. 



As to an indictment for selling diseased animals for food, see Moeschke 

 V. State (Ind. App.), 42 N. E. Rep. 1029. 



A city has authority to pass ordinances requiring an ante-mortem in- 

 spection of animals intended to be slaughtered for food as well as those 



