Buchanan against Parnshaw
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1788 |
| Date | 24 November 1788 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 401
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Distinguished, Bert v. Osborn, 1825, 2 C. & P. 75. Referred to, Chapman v. Gwyther, 1866, L. R. 1 Q. B. 466.
745] buchanan against parnshaw. Monday, Nov. 24th, 1788. If a horse sold at a public auction be warranted sound, and six years old, and it be one of the conditions of sale that he shall be deemed sound unless returned in two days, this condition applies only to the warranty of soundness. Therefore where a horse sold with such a warranty was discovered to be 12 years old ten days after the sale, and was then offered to the seller, who refused to take him, it was holden that an action might be maintained by the buyer against the seller, and his right to recover is nob affected by his having sold the horse after offering him to the defendant.-See Fielder v. Stazkin, H. Bl. Rep. C. B. 17, that where a horse has been sold warranted sound, which was unsound at the time of the sale, the seller is liable to an action on the warranty, without either the horse being returned, or notice given of the unsoundness. [Distinguished, Bert v. Osborn, 1825, 2 C. & P. 75. Referred to, Chapman v. Gwyther, 1866, L. R. 1 Q. B. 466.] This was an action on the warranty of a horse against the seller, tried before Grose, J. at the sittings after last term. The circumstances of the case were these ; The horse was sold at a public auction, warranted six years old and sound, and one of the conditions of the sale at the auction was that the purchaser of any horse warranted sound, who should conceive the same to be unsound, should return him within two days, otherwise he should be deemed sound. Ten days after the sale the plaintiff discovered that the horse in question was twelve years old, and then the defendant refused to receive him ; and the plaintiff sold him. It was proved that the horse was twelve years old : but the jury were of opinion that the plaintiff, by not returning the horse sooner, had made him his own, and gave a verdict for the defendant. And a rule having been obtained to set aside that verdict, Erakine now shewed cause, and observed that the plaintiff had precluded himself from rescinding the contract by selling the horse. Besides, by one of the conditions (b) 2 Blae. 973. (c) Cowp. 473. (d) This cause was tried again at the sittings after this term, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff; and Lord Kenyon, Ch.J. before whom it was tried, said that it was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial