Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/616

 — — Animals.

394 Paet V. Warranty on Sale of Animals. Servants and agents of horse-dealers.

authority to warrant (g) if the servant or assistant of a horsedealer gives a warranty the principal is bound, even though such servant was expressly forbidden to warrant (li). Any person dealing with an agent or assistant of a horse-dealer has a right to assume an authority to warrant (i), and evidence of a custom amongst horse-dealers not to warrant is inadmissible (j). A horse-dealer is not bound by the action of his servant who is sent merely to deliver a horse already sold, and who signs a receipt containing a warranty (A;), or who warrants such an incidental matter as that a horse may safely be placed with others in a stable, because the warranty is not given in the course of the transaction

of sale

(Z).

On

Warranty by partners.

Infants.

the other hand, a buyer who sends a servant to accept a horse with a warranty is not bound if the servant accepts it without a warranty, and may return the horse (m). A warranty by one of two partners who are horse-dealers binds the other, though as between the partners there is an agreement

not to warrant (n). An infant, not being able to contract except for necessaries, not liable for breach of warranty of a horse (o).

Part Sect.

1.

VI.— Dogs. At Coiiwion

Stjb-Sect.

Nature

of

property in

is

1.

Laiu,

In General.

A dog, although a domestic animal (p), is not, on account baseness of its nature and the extremity of the ancient punishment for felony (q), the subject of larceny at common law. 855.

q|

^]jq

Brooks v. Hassall (1883), 49 (g) Alexander v. Oihson (1811), 2 Camp. 555 L. T. 569. (/i) Howard v. Sheiuard (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 148, i?er Byles, J., at p. 152; Pickering v. Busk (1812), 15 East, 38, 45. Compare Coleman v. Bidies (1855), 24 L. J. (c. P.) 125, at p. 128. (?) Hovjard v. Sheiuard, supra, per WiLLES, J., at p. 151.

(1834), 2 Cr. & M. 391. Compare Strode v. By son see Cornefoot v. Foivke (1839), 9 L. J. (EX.) 297. {I) Baldray v. Bates (1885), 1 T. L. E. 558. {m) Jordan v. Norton (1838), 4 M. & W. 155. [n) Sandilands v. Marsh (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 673.

{k)

Woodin

(1804),

1

v.

Burford

Smith, 400



and

See title Infants. See p. 368, ante. The owner of a lost dog may maintain trover, and the finder has no right to detain it nntil he is paid for its keep {Binstead v. Buck merely keeping and feeding an animal does not, apart (1776), 2 Wm. Bl. 1117) from contract, confer any lien. See title Bailment. " " A dog is goods within the meaning of a statute {B. v. Slade (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 433). A dog is "property " within s. 102 of the Larceny Act, 1861, and it is therefore an offence to advertise a reward for the return of a lost dog and to state that " no questions will be asked" (Mirams v. Our Bogs Fuhlishing Co., (o)

(j?)



K

B. 564). [1901] 2 {q) See note (u), p. 368, ante.