CHAPTER IV. 



Present state 

 of the law. 



Definition of 

 soundness. 



WHAT DISEASES OK BAD HABITS CONSTITUTE UNSOUNDNESS 

 OK VICE. 



Unsoundness and Vice. 



In buying and selling horses, it is of the utmost import- 

 ance to ascertain what constitutes unsoundness, and what 

 habits are to be considered mces. Until comparatively 

 lately there had been much perplexity on these points ; no 

 correct rule as to unsoundness had been laid down, and a 

 difference of opinion existed among the Judges whether or 

 not a temporary disease was, during its existence, a breach 

 of a warranty of soundness. The law on these subjects has 

 been in a great measure settled by the Judges of the Court 

 of Exchequer, where Mr. Baron Parke laid down a rule 

 with regard to unsoundness, by which, so far as the nature 

 of the subject will admit, all future cases will be governed, 

 it being the result of the deliberate consideration of the 

 Court (a) . The same learned judge also in another case 

 expressed an opinion as to what constitutes a vice (b), and 

 keeping this in view, a correct estimate may be formed of 

 what will be considered a breach of a warranty of " freedom 

 from vice." 



It is a difficult matter without the use of negatives to 

 explain, fully and briefly, the meaning of the word " sound," 

 as applied to horses. Chief Justice Best, in the case of 

 Best V. Osborne (c), held, that " sound " meant perfect. In 

 Kiddell v. Burnard id), Mr. Baron Parke said, "The word 

 ' sound ' means what it expresses, namely, that the animal 

 is sound and free from disease at the time he is warranted." 

 And in the same case Mr. Baron Alderson said, " The 

 word ' sound ' means sound; and the only qualification of 

 which it is susceptible arises from the purpose for which 

 the warranty is given." 



(a) Eiddell t. Burnard, 9 M. & 

 "W. 670 ; Coatts y. Stephens, 2 M. & 

 Eob. 157. These cases hare been 

 followed in America in Kornegaij v. 

 Tfliite, 10 Ala. 255; EoierUy . Jen- 

 kins, 1 Foster (N. H.) 116 ; Thomp- 



son V. Bertrand, 23 Ark. 730. 



(b) Scholejield T. Sohb, 2 M. & Eob 

 210. 



(c) Best v. Osborne, R. & M. 290. 



(d) Kiddell v. Burnard, 9 M. & 

 W. 670. 



