Is a defendant entitled to be paid for feeding and caring for the team?

As to whether the defendant was or is entitled to be paid for feeding and caring for the team, the answer appears likewise to be no. In the case of Halliday v. White (1864), 23 U.C.Q.B. 593, the plaintiff had sold two horses to the defendant who sent them back as not agreeing with an alleged warranty. The plaintiff there sought, as the defendant here seeks, to be paid for their keep while in his possession. It was held that even though the horses were the property of the defendant, the plaintiff could not succeed because there was no promise to pay and the law does not recognize liability arising out of the benefit to the defendant’s property by the act of the plaintiff feeding the horses and the probable loss had the plaintiff omitted to do so. Thus, this apsect of the defendant’s counterclaim must also fail.