SALE AND WARRANTY OF HORSES. 223 
“ Cut a warranty made after the completion of the sale is of 
no value whatever, being without any consideration/’ 
“ From these premises also, coupled with the rule that where 
a contract is reduced to writing, the writing is the sole legitimate 
evidence to prove its terms, we may further deduce that an oral 
warranty made previously to a sale by written contract, but not 
inserted in the instrument, will not be valid. Thus in Pickering 
v . Dowson, Gibbs, C. J. says, ‘ I hold that if a man brings 
me a horse and makes any representation whatever of his quality 
and soundness, and afterwards we agree in writing for the pur¬ 
chase of the horse, that shortens and corrects the representations; 
and whatever terms are not contained in the contract do not bind 
the seller, and must be struck out of the case/ ” 
“ It is also a rule of law, that where a commission is given to 
execute any work, every power necessary to carry it on will be 
implied. A servant, therefore, employed to sell a horse, has an 
implied authority to warrant that it is sound ; and in the case of 
a general agent—for example, the servant of a livery-stable 
keeper -this warranty will bind the master, though made con¬ 
trary to his express directions ; and, in every case, the warranty 
of a servant or agent, so entrusted to sell, will bind the principal, 
if he do not expressly prohibit it being made/’ 
“ With respect to what declarations of the seller will amount 
to a warranty, the primary rule for the interpretation of contracts 
in general is applicable. It depends upon the intention of the 
parties.” 
“ Thus, a simple affirmation of the goodness of an article is a 
warranty, provided it appear to have been so intended; whereas 
the sublimest epithets that seller ever employed to recommend 
his goods to a credulous buyer, will be regarded as the idle 
phraseology of the market, unless an intention to warrant ac¬ 
tually appear . For example, when the vender declared at the 
time of sale, that he could warrant, it was held to mean that he 
would and did warrant. So when the seller affirms that the goods 
are his property, he is held to warrant the title . And, on the 
other hand, when at the time of sale the seller showed the buyer 
a written pedigree, which he had received from the person of 
whom he bought the horse, and said he sold him according 
to that pedigree, the mark being out of his mouth when he 
bought him, and the pedigree was proved to be false; it was held 
that this was no warranty. No general rule, therefore, can be 
laid down on the present head, further than this—that it is from 
the intention of the parties, as collected from the whole transac¬ 
tion, and from the meaning they appear to afford to particular 
