"WHAT AMOUNTS TO A WARRANTY. 87 



an action, if he can show that the horse was unsound to the 

 seller's knowledge.^* So an affirmation that the horse was 

 not lame, accompanied by the owner's declaration that he 

 would not be afraid to warrant him, was held to be a war- 

 ranty.^"" Where mares were described in a catalogue as "in 

 foal to," "stinted to" or "served by" certain horses, these ex- 

 pressions were held to amount to a warranty.^^^ A public 

 statement by a seller of horses at auction that all those that 

 were not kind and safe to drive single would be specified at 

 the time of sale, is a warranty as to a horse sold without any 

 specification, the buyer relying on the statement.^"^ The 

 buyer of horses under a written bill of sale simply reciting the 

 transfer with warranty of title may recover damages for false 

 oral representations of the seller as to their trotting qualities 

 and pedigree.^"* 



A warranty that a horse partly blind "was all right, except 

 he would sometimes shy," was held to be substantially a war- 

 ranty that he was "sound." ^"^ The seller's statement that 

 a horse was "all right" was held, under the circumstances to 

 amount to a warranty that his eyes were sound.^"* And a 

 representation that a horse was fourteen years old was held 

 to be a warranty that he was no older.^"® 



"It may perhaps be true that proof of a warranty that a 

 horse was 'well broke' might include a warranty that he was 

 'gentle,' as the greater includes the less. But a declaration 

 that a horse was warranted gentle and that he proved to be 

 otherwise, is not supported by proof that he was not so 

 trained as to be suited to a particular kind of work. The 

 word 'gentle' does not, in its ordinary or legal sense, import 



™ Wood V. Smith, 4 C. & P. 45. 



™ Cook V. Moseley, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 277. 



'" Gee V. Lucas, 16 L. T. N. S. 357- 



"" Ingraham v. Union R. Co., 19 R. I. 356. 



" McFarland v. McGill (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. Rep. 402. 



^°* Kingsley v. Johnson, 49 Conn. 462. 



"' Little V. Woodworth, 8 Neb. 281. 



"° Burge V. Stroberg, 42 Ga. 88. 



