The Cattle Purchase Case.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7863, 4 July 1905, Page 2

The Cattle Purchase Case.

OLAIM FOR DAMAGES DISMISSED. „ THE LAW ON WARRANTY. p (. Mr T. Hutchison. S.M., pave his reserved Judgment on Monday in the case H. Morrow and W. D Lvnn v j John Hale, a claim for £lOl 15k, c damages in cmnection with a cattle c transaction. Mr T. S. Weston 0 p- < peurcd for the plaintiffs anU Mr U. ] (•ray for t'.it defendant. i The S.M., in delivering Judgment, ' said':. '"J'he plaintiffs by their stato- : ment of claim alleged -.thai' ithey pur- i chased from the defendant, through Mr Newton King, his l agent, a herd of 37 Jcssoy cows for £434 Ins: .that prior, to an'.i l a.t the I'tl-mc of such) i purchase defendant, represented and warranted that eight of the cows were pedigree cows, anU promised forthwith to obtain and hand to the plaintiffs .'the particulars of (such pedigree :' ami that the plaintiffs purchased, relying upon such representations and warranty and such promise. They allege that the deicrelant. his faded' to supply the pedi gree. of the eight cows, and tha't, without the peel gree Ihe herd is- only wortu £9 a head instead of £ll 15fl a head, which! wart the price they, paid, and they therefore claim £lOl 15s as damages. The plain-tiffs further ailoged a warranty that Uifi cows wore in calf, but as tin's part, of the case was explicitly abmltdoned at the hearing, it: need not be. noticed. There is an alternative <tnmt framed upon the alleged promise to hand over the particulars of trip pedigree be-floro mentioned. The substantial cJaim -then is for breach of warranty." After reviewing the evidence at \ length his Worship said :—",'Tho ' plaintiffs had already determined to buy upon such iiil'mnmalion and.know- - ledge as they then had if only Lynn, ' ilia agent, could arrange One pric«. u .Still more obviously, statements alb leged to have been made by the de--3 fondant on August 5, when the des livery of the cattle was ta.ken, have t no bearing upon the conl/aCI between r the parties and need not be discuss- - ed.

"These hi'inc the tacts, .it is obvious that lluTe wns no warranty of any kind made by the defendant directly to the plaintiffs or to either of them. The jilnintifTs' case must 'be that there was a warranty by nn agent. What. then, is the evidence of this? It is clear that Mr Xowt.m King was instructed to sell ihe defendant's herd, and it is equally cle.ir that Mr Shaw a' il Mr H. Lynn (both in Mr King's .ittiU'j) were at one stage or another of the transaction intciriecdiuries l>.tw.>;(» th" plaintiffs and the defendant. It is 'also clou- that to Mr Shiiw crtainly. and to Mr Lynn possibly, the defendant stated that seven or eight of his cows were cows, but il is remarkable that no evi.ienco was adduced to show when or in what tonus either Mr Shliw or llr 11. Lynn wiuxnnted any or the defendant's h.*d in. the plaintiffs. "It is left to inference that n|n(v alalemcnt at all on the subject was made to the iilnintifTs. Mr Shaw saw the plaintiff Marrow nl Itabotu before the sale on July l. r s, but as to what he said to him the evidence, is silent. If he made any representations, however, they were not t.iose upon which thw j-luiiiliff* conld rely, because Morrow himself says that what he ivbed on in purchasing Ihe herd was his co-plaintiff's statement. 'I1:lis puis any representation (assuming th'-re was one) by Mr Shaw out of the question. Then is there any evidence-jjlut ,U. Lynn g).\Vo any warranty on behalf of the ctciendanl ?

"But even if there were evideffco of the most express warranty by him it. is very doubtful whether th'u plaintiffs could rely upon it tjecaiiso. as I interpret the evidence, 'the ti-caly for the purchase of defendant's herd fell wlhfn the plaint ff (W. H. Lynn) offered and the defendant rejected ill per head, and what took place subieVjiiently was an independent negotiation, in which Lynn, the st.ick agent, appeared as the njcent O f the plaintiffs only. "In the foregoing, moreover, it has lx-en assumed that the defendant's, a (cent had authority, express or implied, to give a- warranty on His behalf. But hero again the plain tills' case fulls. "Then.- is not any evidence of uny express authority. It is true Mr Shaw says that he was uutfiiorised (o say. apparently t 0 nnyone, that there were seven pedigree cows, but he immediately adds that this was a mere inference of his own. 'that, certainly, is not sufficient : and as to an implied authority, the merits in law also abide with tip defendant. For even if it were proved that the defendant's ft-yl, Hum fervtet opus, ■ I mean in the .very ncgotta. lions which resulted in the sale, expressly warranted that the c o ws wort) pedigree cattle, 1' tun 'of opinion that such a warranty would not bind the defendant.

I "The law appears to be tfuite. clear thut a social agent employed ias here for tho single purpose of privately effecting a sale, has no implied authority to give a warranty which would b mi tho principal.

"The law. is stated to this elTeCfcin Olip/nant on Horses (Mil rdit&n pp. 121. and 122) and in Itrailv v. Todd (30 L.J.C.I'., p. 221). Chief Justice Karl h<;re says : 'We therefore hold that the buyer taking a warranty -fjrofm feuch an ugml as w„s cmployed in this ease (the servant of a private owner instructed un a particular occasion to sell a horsu) takes it at the risk of being ably to prove ti'nat he hud the principal's authority, nml if there was m> authority in fact, the law, i'rwii the circumstances', dot's not in my opinion create it.'

"Th:> present case is the case of a private s;tli\ and is qovered by llrady v. Todd, but even if the sale were one at public auction (a point whhjv was left open in Hrndy v. Todd) it appws that the auctioneer would have no implied authority to give a. warranty. Payilo v. Lecivilield, ;">1 L.J.Q.11., p. fj-l-S" "Ah to li'ue claim framwl upon an alleged promise to deliver particular!! of pedigrees, it., is- say that there wwsf not evidence al.lilli of such a promise having been made.

"Prior to or at the time of (Jhcr. sale" was alleged, and any promise l of the k nd made subsequent thereto is, of course, 'in law, worthless."

Judgment -was therefore entered [or the defendant, with costs, including mileage,