JURISPRUDENCE. 
77 
time elapsed after the sale will alter the nature of contracts 
originally false ; though the not giving notice will be strong 
presumption against the buyer that the horse at the time of 
the sale, had not the defect complained of, and will make 
the proof of his part more difficult.’ According to Dejean 
(‘ Action Bedhibitoire ’) the time allowed by the French law to 
bring an action to return a horse for specific ophthalmia and 
epilepsy is thirty days, and nine days for all the other diseases 
which constitute unsoundness under their laws. The time to 
count from the time of delivery, and if the buyer neglects to take 
action within that time, the sale must hold good. The date of 
purchase, whether the animal is removed or not, unless the seller 
distinctly refuses to deliver it, is the date of delivery, and the risk 
is the purchaser’s, even if he lias not been paid for, or dies at his 
place, except he dies from any of the legal unsoundnesses. Our 
own common law establishes no certain number of days within 
which action has to be taken—1530—C. Code. ‘ The redhibi¬ 
tory action resulting from the obligations of warranty against 
latent defects must be brought with reasonable diligence, accord¬ 
ing to the nature of the defect, and the usage of the place where 
the sale was madethus leaving the question, as to time, to the 
jud gment of the court, as to whether or not the purchaser has 
acted in the matter with due diligence. 
Before leaving the subject of warranty I will read the follow¬ 
ing decision lately given in a horse case in England relative to 
the wording of a warranty: “The decision of the court in the 
case of ‘ Anthony vs. Halsted’ deserves the attention of horse- 
owners, as teaching a practical lesson in the construction of writ¬ 
ten warranties. 
“ The plaintiff bought a horse of the defendant, and on pay¬ 
ment of the price obtained a, receipt and warranty in this form: 
‘ Deceived, from C. Anthony, Esq., the sum of £60 for a black 
horse, rising five years. Quiet to ride and drive, and warranted 
sound up to this date, or subject to the opinion of a veterinary 
surgeon.’ This horse was not quiet, so Mr. Anthony brought his 
action for breach of warranty in the Hereford County Court. 
The judge ruled that the warranty extended to quietness as well 
