Pacific Iron Works v. Newhall, 34 Conn 67; Wilcox Co. v. Owens, 64 Ga. 601 (statutory); Chicago Packing Co v Tilton. 87 Ill. 547; Poland v. Miller, 95 Ind. Conant v Nat. Bank. 121 Ind. 323; Blackmore v. Fairbanks, 79 Ia. 282; Craver v. Hornburg, 26 Kan. 94; Downing v. Dearborn. 77 Me. 457; Rice 0 Forsyth, 41 Md. 389; Cunningham v. Hall. 4 Allen, 268, 273; White v. Miller, 71 N Y. 118; Thomas v. Simpson, 80 N. C. 4; Rogers v. Niles Ohio St 48; Byers v Chapin, 28 Ohio st. 300; Morse v. Union Stock Yard Co. 21 Ore. 289; Port Carbon Co. v. Groves, 68 Pa.

149; Overton v. Phelan, 2 Head, 445; Bragg v. Morrill. 49 Vt. 45; Gerst v. Jones, 32

Gratt. 518; Bigelow v Baxall, 38 Up Can Q B 452. And see Wilson v. Dunville, 4 L R. Ir. 249; 6 L R. Ir 210. But if the buyer selects the orders a particular kind which is sent there is no warranty, Seits v. Brewers' Refrigerating Mach Co, 141 U S 510; Farrows v Andrews, 69 Ala. 96; Cogel v. Knisely, 89 Ill Walker v. Pue, 57 Md 155; Hight v Bacon, 126 Mam 10; Giroux v. Stedman, 145 Mass. 439 Gould v Brophy, 42 Minn. 109; Deeming 0. Foaler, 42 N. H.. 165 Dounce v. Dow, 64 N. Y 411: Wolcott v. Mount, 36 N J L. 262, 267; 38 X .1. L 496; Port Carbon Co v. Groves, 68 Pa. 149 J Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443; Tilton Safe Co v Tisdale, 48 Vt 83; Mason v Chappell, 15 Gratt 572.

Exch. 342; Brown v. Sayles, 1 Williams, 227; Dickson v. Jordan, 11 Ired L. 166; Pease v. Sabin, 38 Vt. 432; Bartlett v Hoppock, 34 N. Y. 118.

(b) Prideaux v. Burnett, 1 C. B. (n s.) 613.

(c) Macfarlane v. Taylor, L. R. 1. Sc & D. App. 245; Thorns v. Dingley, 70 Me. 100. "If a man says to another, ' Sell me a horse fit to carry me,' and the other sells a horse which he knows to be unfit to ride, he may be liable for the consequences; but if a man says, ' Sell me that gray horse to ride,' and the other sells it, knowing that the former will not be able to ride it, that would not make him liable." Maule, J., in Keates v. Cadogan, 2 E. L. & E. 320; s. c. 10 C. B. 591. See also Chanter v. Hopkins, 4 M. & W. 399, which fully establishes the distinction taken in the text, and is a leading case on the subject. There the defendant sent to the plaintiff, the patentee of an invention known as " Chanter's smoke-consuming furnace," the following written order: " Send me your patent hopper and apparatus, to fit up my brewing copper with your smoke-consuming furnace. Patent right £15 15s., iron work not to exceed £5 5.s.; engineer's time fixing, 7s. 6d. per day." The plaintiff accordingly put up on the defendant's premises one of his patent furnaces, but it was found not to be of any use for the purposes of brewery, and was returned to the plaintiff. It was held (no fraud being imputed to the plaintiff), that there was not an implied warranty on his part that the furnace supplied should be fit for the purposes of brewery; but that, the defendant having defined by the order the particular machine to be supplied, the plaintiff performed his part of the contract by supplying that machine, and was entitled to recover the whole .£15 15s., the price of the patent right. See also Prideaux v. Burnett, 1 C. B. (n. s.) 613. Bluett v. Osborne, 1 Stark. 384, supports this distinction. In that case the plaintiff sold the defendant a bowsprit.

purpose, evidence is inadmissible to show that the buyer in fact bought it intending to apply it to a special purpose, and found it. unfit. (cc) In all sales of provisions for immediate domestic use, there is an implied warranty that they arc wholesome and lit for use. But this warranty extends no farther, and does not cover a sale of provisions for any other than immediate consumption. (cd) 1

*But whatever may be the law as to an implied war- ranty that personal property bought and sold, or ordered and manufactured for a particular purpose, shall be reasonably fit for such a purpose, - no such rule applies to real estate It seems, indeed, to be quite well settled, that in a lease or purchase of a house and land, there is no implied warranty that it shall he reasonably fit for habitation, occupation, or cultivation; still less that it shall be fit for the purpose for which it was taken. (d) 2

It appeared at the time to be, in every respect, good and perfect. The defendant had ample opportunity to inspect it. Soon after the bowsprit was cut up and found to be rotten. The defendant resisted payment, on the ground that there was an implied warranty by the vendor that the article should be made of good and sufficient materials. No fraud was attributed to the vendor. The defence was not sustained, and the plaintiff had a verdict for the whole price. Here there was a sale of a specific chattel,- intended, it is true, for a particular purpose by the purchaser, but not furnished or made for that purpose by the vendor. See also Gray v. Cox, 4 B. & C. 108; Dickson v. Jordan, 11 Ired. L. 166; Burns v. Fletcher, 2 Cart. (Ind.) 372.

(cc) Bartlett v. Hoppock, 34 N. Y. 118.

(cd) Moses v. Mead, 1 Denio, 378. And it seems not to matter that they are purchased for domestic use, unless they were exposed to sale for that purpose, or the seller was a provision dealer. Burnby v. Bollett, 16 M. & W. 644. In this case, A, a farmer, bought in the public market of a country town, from B, a butcher keeping a stall there, the carcass of a dead pig for consumption, and left it hanging up, intending to return after completing other business and take it away. In his absence C, a farmer, ing it and wishing to buy, was referred to A as the owner, and subsequently, on the same day. bought it of A, the original buyer, without any warranty. It did not appear that any secret detect in it was known to any of the parties. It turned out to be unsound, and unfit for human consumption. It was held, that no warranty of soundness was implied by law between the fanners A and C. But see Divine v. McCormick, 50 Barb. 116. See also Van Branklin v, Fonda, 12 Johns. 468; Emerson v. Mrigham, 10 Mass. 197; Hart v. Wright, 17 Wend. 267; S. C , 18 id. 449; Winsor v. Lombard, 18 Pick. 57; Humphreys v. Comline, 8 Blackf. 516; Sinclair v. Hathaway, 57 Mich. 60; Morehouse v. Comstock, 42 Wis. 626 If an innkeeper agree with a brewer to take all his beer of him, he is bound to furnish him with beer of a wholesome quality. Holcombe v. Hewson, 2 Camp. 891; Cooper v Twibill, 3 Camp. 286.