92 SALE AND MORTGAGE. 



evidenced by symptoms," was said to apply only to cases of 

 fever having no fixed lawr for their commencement, and it was 

 held that where the disease is a chronic one, like rheumatism, 

 it is not necessary to show that the symptoms existed at the 

 time of the sale, as subsequent incidents and appearances may 

 show that the disease existed before the sale, although the 

 symptoms had not then been observed.^ ^^ And it is an un- 

 soundness where, though the purchaser is aware of the dis- 

 ease, yet its precise character not being obvious to the senses, 

 its extent is uncertain and unknown.^^® 



If a habit is decidedly injurious to an animal's health and 

 tends to impair his usefulness, it comes within the definition 

 of a "vice." i^* 



A declaration for breach of warranty in which it is not al- 

 leged wherein the unsoundness consists is bad on demurrer 

 but cured by verdict.^*" Where the plaintiff alleged that the 

 animals were totally worthless on account of glanders, men- 

 tioning no other disease, it was held that proof of any other 

 disease would not warrant a recovery.^^^ 



The plaintiff must positively prove that the animal was un- 

 sound,^^^ and that it was so at the time of the sale.^^^ But 



'"' Crouch V. Culbreath, ii Rich. L. (S. C.) 9. And see Fondren v. 

 Durfee, 39 Miss. 324, following Shewalter v. Ford, infra. So, where an 

 hereditary disease exists in sheep which is incapable of discovery till its 

 appearance: Jolifif v. Bendell, Ry. & Mo. 136; and where a horse has the 

 seeds of glanders, though the disease does not develop till some time 

 after the sale: Woodbury v. Robbins, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 520. And see 

 Bristol V. Galway, infra. 



'"' Shewalter v. Ford, 34 Miss. 417. And see Chadsey v. Greene, 24 

 Conn. 562; Perdue v. Harwell, 80 Ga. 150; Storrs v. Emerson, 72 la. 390, 

 cited in § 27, supra. 



'-' Scholefield v. Robb, 2 M. & Rob. 210. 



'™ Martin v. Blodget, i Aik. (Vt.) 375. 



"" Snowden v. Waterman, 100 Ga. 588. 



"^ Eaves v. Dixon, 2 Taunt. 343. 



"'Miller v. McDonald, 13 Wis. 673. Expert testimony is admissible 

 some months after the sale to show that the alleged unsoundness was of a 

 nature to indicate its existence at the time of sale: Bristol v. Galway, 68 

 Conn. 248. 



