Thе question whether the words used by the plaintiff, at the sale of the horses, as to their ages, amountеd to a warranty, was a question of fact for thе jury. (10 Wend. 411.) Ho particular phraseology is necessary to constitute a warranty, but the words used by the vendor should be understood by the parties as an absolute assertion, and not the expression of an opinion. And it is for the jury to determine how the words were understood and intended by the parties. (8 Cowen, 26,7. 4 id. 442. 20 John. 203.) I think the evidence in this case was sufficient to be submitted to the jury to determine whether the words used by the рlaintiff amounted to a warranty, or not; and that their verdict in favor of the defendant was not so unsupported by the evidence as to justify the cоunty court in disturbing it. The rule seems to be, that where therе is evidence on both sides, the judgment
In my opinion the judgment of the county court' should be reversed, and that of the justice affirmed.
Judgment accordingly.
C. L. Allen, James, Podge and RoseJcrans, Justices.]