196 PLEADING, EVIDENCE AND DAMAGES. 



that if a person has bought a horse with a warranty, which 

 has been broken, and he tenders the horse to the seller, and 

 the seller refuse to receive it back, the buyer is entitled 

 to keep it a reasonable time till he can sell it, and for that 

 time he may, against the seller, recover the expense of 

 keeping it ; but he must not keep it as long as he chooses. 

 All that he is allowed to do is to keep it for a reason- 

 able time till he can fairly sell it, and for that tune he 

 ought to be allowed for keeping it. If it was a good 

 thing for the sale of the horse to keep it till Readmg Fair, 

 you will find your verdict for the amount claimed ;_ but if 

 you think the horse ought to have been sold within a 

 week or a fortnight, or some other short time, you 

 will deduct so much of the claim as goes beyond the 

 time." The jury gave the plaintiff a verdict for the whole 

 amount (A). 

 Expense con- In the case of Cox V. Wall-er (i), where an action was 

 sequent on brought for a breach of the warranty of a horse sold as 

 rant™"^' sound, the special damage alleged in the declaration was 



the plaintiff's expense incurred by reason of the warranty, 

 and his loss of gains and profits in reselling the horse; 

 and the only plea was a denial of the unsoundness. It 

 appeared that the plaintiff had bought the horse of the 

 defendant for 100/., and had been ofltered 140/. for him, 

 but the horse, proving unsound, the plaintiff had been 

 obliged to give up the bargain, and sell him for 49/. 7s. 

 Lord Denman, C.J., directed the jury that the plaintiff was 

 entitled to recover the difference between the price at which 

 he was finally sold, and the actual value of the horse if he 

 had been sound at the time of such sale ; and he left to 

 the consideration of the jury, as a measure of the value, the 

 price offered for the horse whilst in the plaintiff's hands. 

 The jury found for the plaintiff 90/. 13s. damages. A rule 

 nisi was obtained for a new trial on the ground of mis- 

 direction, or for a reduction of damages. Cause was 

 shown in Easter Term, 1836, before Lord Denman, C.J., 

 and Littledale, Patteson, and Coleridge, J J. The Court 

 took time to consider, and the case stood over for several 

 terms, but was at length settled. 

 Expense in And in another case, where the horse had been tendered 



selling. to the defendant and refused. Chief Justice Tindall in 



charging the jury said, "You will give as damages the 



(A) miis V. Chinnock, 7 C. & P. Denman, C.J., in Clare y . Maynard, 

 169. 6 A. & E. 523. 



(i) Cox V. Walker, cited per Lord 



