Contemporary  Agricultural  Law. 
135 
English,  lasting  only  about  three,  instead  of  six,  seven,  or  eight 
years.  He  claimed  damages  from  the  respondents  for  breach 
of  warranty,  which  was  settled  by  them,  after  due  notice  to  the 
appellants,  for  14Z.  Other  similar  claims  had  been  made  and 
had  already  been  or  were  in  course  of  being  settled  by  them. 
The  respondents  claimed  the  sum  of  14 1.  from  the  appellants. 
Judgment  was  given  in  favour  of  the  respondents  and  the 
appellants  appealed.  In  the  Court  of  Appeal  this  judgment 
was  reversed,  it  being  held  that  inasmuch  as  the  respondents 
had  by  re-selling  the  seed  put  it  out  of  their  power  to  reject  it 
and  return  it  to  the  appellants  on  the  ground  that  the  condition 
that  it  should  be  English  sainfoin  had  not  been  fulfilled,  and  as 
the  property  in  the  seed  had,  under  Section  11,  Sub-section  1 (c) 
of  the  Sale  of  Goods  Act,  1893,  passed  to  the  respondents  as 
purchasers,  the  condition  ceased  to  operate  as  a condition,  and 
a breach  thereof  could  only  be  treated  as  a breach  of  warranty, 
in  respect  of  which  the  respondents  were  not  entitled  to 
recover,  their  remedy  in  respect  of  breach  of  warranty  being 
barred  by  the  clause  on  the  back  of  the  note.  The  respondents 
were  therefore  unable  to  recover  the  loss  they  had  sustained. 
It  should  be  noted  that  there  was  no  question  of  fraud  or 
unfair  dealing  in  the  case,  the  seeds  being  said  to  be  almost 
undistinguishable  by  examination,  and  the  only  real  question 
was  the  construction  of  the  contract  of  sale. 
6.  Miscellaneous.  Under  this  head  may  be  noted  the  case 
of  Hoddell  v.  Parker  (1910,  2 K.B.,  323  ; 79  L.J.K.B.,  759), 
where  the  question  arose  as  to  whether  an  engine  had  been 
used  for  “agricultural  purposes”  only.  The  Locomotives  Act, 
1898,  Section  9,  requires  locomotives  used  on  any  highway  in 
a county  to  be  licensed  by  the  County  Council,  with  an  excep- 
tion in  favour  of  “ any  agricultural  locomotive  ” and  “ any 
locomotive  not  used  for  haulage  purposes.”  “Agricultural  loco- 
motive” is  defined  in  Section  17  as  including  “any  locomotive 
used  solely  for  threshing,  ploughing,  or  any  other  agricultural 
purpose.”  Messrs.  Hoddell,  who  owned  a threshing  engine, 
let  it  to  a farmer  under  a contract  to  thresh  and  haul  wheat  to 
a certain  mill.  The  engine  was  used  in  hauling  the  wheat 
after  it  was  threshed  to  a mill  in  the  county  of  Monmouth  to 
be  ground.  It  was  held  that  the  use  of  the  engine  in  the  haul- 
ing of  corn  to  market  to  be  sold  or  to  a mill  was  not  an 
“agricultural  purpose”  within  the  meaning  of  Section  17  of 
the  Locomotives  Act,  1898,  and  therefore  that  Messrs.  Hoddell 
were  not  exempt  from  the  necessity  of  obtaining  a licence  and 
paying  the  usual  fee. 
Aubrey  J.  Spencer. 
15  Old  Square, 
Lincoln’s  Inn,  W.C. 
