194 PLEADING, EVIDENCE AND DAMAGES. 



Where the horse has been resold by the purchaser before 

 the breach of warranty has been discovered, the price 

 obtained at the second sale may be left to the jury as a 

 mode of estimating what the real value of the horse, if 

 perfect, would have been ; but the difference between the 

 price and the purchase-money cannot be given as specific 

 damage on account of the loss of profit which might have 

 been made on it (6). 

 Where the But after a breach of warranty, the buyer is entitled to 



horse has recover a reasonable sum of money for the expense of keep, 



dered. " where before re-sale he has tendered the horse to the seller ; 



and the buyer is entitled to keep the horse for such reason- 

 able time as is required to sell him to the best advantage (c). 

 What length of time and sum of money is reasonable for 

 the keep is a question for the jury (d). 

 Expense of The whole subject of keep was fully considered in the 



^^^' case of Chesterman v. Lamb {d), where an action of assumpsit 



was brought on the warranty of a horse, and also for the 

 expense of his keep. It appeared at the trial that the 

 defendant sold and delivered the horse to the plaintiff on 

 the 28th of June. Early in July the horse was found to 

 be lame; and on the 10th, upon examination by a veteri- 

 nary surgeon, the complaint was found to be spavin (e). On 

 the 11th of July the plaintiff gave the defendant notice that 

 the horse was unsound, and that he should return him and 

 demand back the purchase-money ; and on the 21st the 

 plaintiff sent the horse to Livery, and informed the defendant 

 that he had done so. On the 27th the action was com- 

 menced; and on the 16th of September, the plaintiff 

 (having informed the defendant of his intention to do so) 

 sold the horse by auction for twenty-three guineas. The 

 action was brought to recover the difference between that 

 sum and 40/., the price given by the plaintiff, and likewise 

 9/. 17s. for the horse's keep at livery till the second sale. 



For the defendant it was insisted that the horse was not 

 unsound, and consequently that nothing was due on account 

 either of the price or the keep. 



Mr. Justice Taunton, in leaving the case to the jury, 



V. Sannatj, 3 Esp. 82 ; Glare y. (J) Clare v. Maynard, 6 A. & E. 



Miiynanl 6 A. & E. 519; Cox v. 519; Coxy. TTuliar, ibid. 523, n. ; 



ff'«?/i'o-, ibid. 523, ii. ; Jones y. Just, Marne on Damages 4th ed 192' 



L. R., 3 a. B. 197 ; 37 L. J., Q. B. (c) M'Kenzie v. Saneock, E. k 



89 ; locler v. Ki-kitle, 3 C. B., N. S. M. 436. 



128 ; 27 L. J., C. P. 27 ; Mayne on {d) Chesterman y . lamb, 2 A. &E. 



Damages, 4th ed. 191 ; Sedgwick 129. 



on Damages, 7th ed. 606. (e) Spavin, ante, p. 94. 



