1 Jones v. Padgett, 24 Q. B. D. 650, Pacific Guano Co. v Mullen, 66 Ala. 582; Snow v. Schomacker Co., 69 Ala.111; Curtis, etc. Mfg. Co. v Williams, 48 Ark 325; ciple *has been carried very far. It must, however, be limited to cases where a thing is ordered for a special purtime of wear of good sheathing; the jury found that the decay was caused by Borne intrinsic defect in the quality of the copper, but that there was no satisfactory evidence of what the defect was. No fraud was imputed to the defendant. After full argument and deliberation, it was held by the whole Court of Common Pleas, that there was an implied warranty that the article was fit for the purpose for which it was sold. See also Brenton v. Davis, 8 Blackf. 317; Rodgers & Co. v. Niles & Co, 11 Ohio St. 48, and Bird v. Mayer, 8 Wis. 362; Fisk v Tank, 12 Wis. 276, Lainge v. Fidgeon, 6 Taunt. 108, is also an important case. The defendant was a saddle manufacturer He sent the plaintiff a sample of saddles that could be made for a certain price. The plaintiff then gave him an order for "goods for North America, 3 dozen single flap saddles, 24s a 26s. with cruppers," etc The saddles delivered were inferior in material and workmanship, useless and unmerchantable, and did not correspond with the sample sent The court held the whole transaction to amount to a contract that the article should be merchantable, and the plaintiff had judgment. Brown v. Edington, 2 Man. & G. 279, also deserves attention The defendant was a dealer in ropes, and represented himself to be a manufacturer of the article. The plaintiff, a wine merchant, applied to him for a crane rope. The defendant's foreman went to the plaintiff's premises in order to ascertain the dimensions and kind of rope required. He examined the crane and the old rope, and took the necessary admeasurements, and was told that the new rope was wanted for the purpose of raising pipes of wine out of the cellar, and Letting them down into the street; when he informed the plaintiff that a rope must be made on pnrpose The defend ant did not make the rope himself, but sent the order to his manufacturer, who employed a third person to make it. It was held, thai as between the parties to the sale, the defendant was to be considered as the manufacturer, and that there was an implied warranty that the rope was a fit and proper one for the purpose for which it was ordered Tindal, C .J. said "It appears to me to be a distinction well founded, both in reason and on authority, that if a party purchases an article upon his own judgment, he cannot afterwards hold the vendor responsible, on the ground that the article turns out to be unfit for the purpose for which it was required; but if he relies upon the judgment of the seller, and informs him of the use to which the article is to be applied, it seems to me the transaction car ries with it an implied warranty that the thing furnished shall be fit and proper for the purposes for which it was designed." In Shepherd v. Pybus, 8 Man. & G. 868, it was held, that in a sale of a barge by the builder there was an implied warranty that it was reasonably Jit Jot use, but it was left undetermined whether there an implied warranty that the barge was fit for some particular purpose, for which the builder knew it was designed by the purchaser. See also Chambers v. Craw-ford, Addison, 150. that a boat-builder, constructing a boat, is held to warrant it sufficient for ordinary use - In Ollivant v Bayley, 5 Q B 288. the plaintiff was the patentee and manufacturer of a patent machine for printing in two defendant saw the machine on the plainpose, and not applied to those where a special thing is ordered, although this be intended for a special purpose. For if the thing is itself * specifically selected and ordered, there the purchaser takes upon himself the risk of its effecting its purpose. Nor can he rely upon statements and assertions made by the maker in circulars and advertisements concerning the article, as a warranty that it will do what is stated. (b) But where he orders a thing for a special purpose, or to do a specific work, there he puts this risk upon the person who is to supply the thing (c) If the thing were not ordered and sold for a special premises, and ordered one, the plaintiff undertaking by a written memorandum to make him " a two color printing machine on my patent principle." In an action for the price, the defendant excused himself from liability on the ground that the machine had been found useless for printing in two colors. The judge, in summing up, told the jury that, if the machine described was a known, ascertained article, ordered by the defendant, he was liable, whether it answered his purpose or not; but that if it was not a known, ascertained article, and the defendant had merely ordered, and the plaintiff agreed to supply, a machine for printing two colors, the defendant was not liable unless the instrument was reasonably fit for the purpose. The Court of Queen's Bench held this to be a proper direction; and the jury having found for the plaintiff under it, they refused to disturb the verdict. See also the next note. In Barnett v. Stanton, 2 Ala. 195, it was determined, that if manufactured goods are open to inspection, and are actually examined by the purchaser, before the sale, there is no implied warranty of quality, although the manufacturer himself be the vendor. See Kirk v. Nice, 2 Watts, 367, that a manufacturer even does not always undertake that the goods made are merchantable. The principle of the text, and the distinction between a sale of a manufactured article by the manufacturer himself, and of an ordinary sale of a chattel, as to implied warranty, is recognized in Misner v. Granger, 4 Oilman, 69; and in Leflore v. Justice, 1 Sm. & M. 381, where it is said that every person who contracts to do a piece of work, impliedly undertakes to apply sufficient skill and dexterity to its performance to complete it in a just and workmanlike manner. So in Howard v. Hoey, 23 Wend. 351, the distinction between manufactured articles and others is recognized. See also Hart v. Wright, 17 Wend. 267; s. c. 18 id. 449; Getty v. Rountree, 2 Chandl. 28; Bull v. Robinson, 28 E. L. & E. 586; s. c. 10