Tripping is a habit, not an unsoundness-not necessarily a vice, as it generally is a habit resulting from malformation, in that the fore-legs are too much under the horse. Vicious horses, in that they are hard and mean to groom, are generally so from having been ill treated, or from their being tender-skinned to a degree that makes them irritable. This may be overcome by kindness; but, so long as it exists to such a degree as to make the horse dangerous, it is a vice. The same reasoning is applicable to horses vicious to shoe, except that this is more rare; but if it is dangerous to shoe a horse, he is "not free from vice.” Weak-foot is caused by disease, as a rule, although it is sometimes the result of a natural malformation of the foot. Horses subject to this weakness can never stand much hard work; they will be subject to corns, bruises, convexity of the soles, and breaking away of the crust. When it is the result of malformation, it is not unsoundness; when caused by disease, it is. Weaving is a bad habit, and is rated a vice when it either injures a horse's health or makes him dangerous. A wheezer is not unlike a person affected by asthma. It is a kind of thick wind, caused by the lodgment of some mucous fluid in the small passages of the lungs. Wheezing is heard constantly, and therein differs from roaring, which is confined to the increased breathing during considerable exertion. Wheezing is unsoundness.1 Whistling is much the same as wheezing, but in that the sound is more shrill, and is heard only when the horse is in motion; it appears to be referrible to some contraction in the windpipe or larynx; it is rated an unsoundness.2 Washy is a term applied to a horse when the least exertion produces in him purging, looseness, etc., the cause being irritation of the intestines; such a horse can do but little work, and is classed as unsound.3 Wind-galls. But few horses are quite free from these, but they only produce lameness when numerous or unusually large. 1 Oliphant's Law of Horses, 106. 2 Ibid; Hanover on Law of Horse, 98. 3 Anslow v. Eames, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 81. Like thoroughpin, they are not unsoundness unless lameness is caused by them, or when they are so large and numerous as to indicate that lameness will probably result from them.1 Wolf's teeth is but a temporary malady, generally easy to cure by drawing the tooth, and is only unsoundness while the extra tooth makes the mouth sore. Yellows, or jaundice, is a bilious malady, generally caused by an obstruction of the ducts or tubes which convey the bile from the liver to the intestines. While the illness lasts, it is an unsoundness. 1 Hanover, p. 98; Stuart v. Wilkins, Doug. 18. CHAPTER XI. THE LAW AS TO HORSES. $134. Legal ethics as to horses. §135. Horse-breakers and trainers, their duties and rights. $138. Lien of "stander" of stallions. § 139. Veterinary surgeons, their duties and rights. § 134. Legal ethics as to horses.-Because of the high place, among domestic animals, which the horse deservedly holds in man's esteem, the manifold uses to which he is applied, and his value as property, it has naturally occurred that, in regarding the subjects of hire, lending, sale, warranty, soundness, etc., of animals generally, the horse has occupied a prominent position, and hence, so far as the topics already commented upon are concerned, but little, if anything, remains to be considered as specially referring to horses; but there are some matters of legal study and reasoning, which, to a greater or less extent, are peculiar and especial to them, and the business relation of men to one another in matters pertaining to these animals. § 135. Horse-breakers and trainers, their duties and rights. Horse-breakers and trainers, in the matters pertaining to their avocation, and those persons who employ them therein, are subject to the general rules which govern the hire of labor and services, unless, by contract, the parties bind themselves by special agreements; and it is only in the absence of express stipulations that laws of general application take effect and furnish the terms of the contract by implication. FARM-12. On the part of the person who employs the trainer to break his horse, or train it for service, the general duties imposed on him by law, and which, in the absence of express stipulations to the contrary, he is presumed to have agreed to, are: 1st. To do everything, on his part, to enable the workman to accomplish the object had in view; 2d. To hide no defects, peculiarities of temperament, or any circumstance which would render the task imposed and accepted peculiarly difficult or dangerous; 3d. To accept the animal when duly broken or trained as stipulated; to conform to the terms of his contract, and pay the price agreed upon, or, if none had been settled, a fair remuneration.1 The person who contracts to break or train the animal is bound to exercise due and proper care of him, must answer for ordinary neglect of the horse, and apply a degree of skill equal to his undertaking. Every man who assumes a task wherein is required peculiar skill or learning, stipulates that he possesses those qualifications; the law implies a contract, on his part, that he can and will perform the service skillfully; his relation to the employer is one of confidence reposed in him, based upon the belief that he is competent to perform the designated service; and if he is not competent, or fails to properly apply his skill or learning, he becomes responsible for damages which may ensue by his breach of the contract.2 § 136. The care and skill required of a trainer or horsebreaker. What degree of care, skill, or diligence the breaker or trainer is bound to exercise, depends upon the circumstances of the case, and the purpose contemplated by the parties in making the contract. As to the care of the animal, the general rule of bailments governs. When the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor, the law requires only slight diligence on the part of the bailee, and makes him answerable only for gross neglect. When the 1 Story on Bailments, Sec. 425. 2 Howard v. Grover, 28 Me. 97; Rogers v. Grothe, 58 Penn. 414; Stanton & Little v. Bell & Joiner, 2 Hawks. 145; 2 Kent's Com. 588. "Every man is presumed to possess the ordinary skill requisite to the due exercise of the art or trade which he assumes. If he performs the work unskillfully, he becomes responsible in damages." (Ritchey v. West, 23 Ill. 385; McNevins v. Low, 40 Ill. 210.) bailee alone is to be benefited, he is bound to exercise extraordinary care, and is responsible for slight neglect. When the bailment is reciprocally beneficial, and both parties are to derive advantage, the law requires ordinary diligence, and makes the bailee responsible for ordinary negligence. This contract for breaking or training a horse, being of mutual benefit, the bailee is not answerable for slight neglect, nor for a loss of or injury to the animal while in his charge, by reason of inevitable accident, irresistible force, theft, or from any inherent disease, fault, or vice of the horse itself.1 137. As to the lien of a horse-breaker or trainer on the animal for his fees, there appears to be some conflict of authorities. By an early English case, it is held that he has such a lien for his fees and charges on the express or implied contract; by his skill the horse is rendered valuable, and changed from a source of expense, without return, into property of value; to his services may be ascribed the value of the property; his lien for compensation is consistent with the principles of natural equity, and is favored by the law, which, in such cases, is construed liberally.2 But this reasoning seems to have been departed from, and the rule remains in a somewhat unsettled condition. For a considerable space of time, doubts were entertained as to whether a lien existed in favor of a trainer, for his services and cost of keeping a race-horse intrusted to him for training. In the earlier cases, some distinctions, in appearance more technical than meritorious, were indulged in, and it was questioned whether the trainer had such a lien, unless the horse was to be trained for some special race. The difficulty in establishing the rule that a horse-breaker or trainer had, for his services, a lien on the animal, appears to have occurred in considering the question of what peculiar value the trainer had imparted to the animal. 12 Kent's Com. 588; Story on Bailments, 437; Jones on Bailments, 88, 89, 119, 120. 2 Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & W. 268. "The artificer, to whom goods are delivered, for the purpose of being worked up into form; or the farrier, by whose skill the animal is cured of a disease; or the horse-breaker, by whose skill he is rendered manageable, have liens on the chattels in respect of their charges; all such specific liens, being consistent with the principles of natural equity, are favored by the law, which is construed liberally in such cases." |