Can a plaintiff recover damages from a veterinary surgeon who alleges that the horse was not fit to sell at the time of sale?

In Eaves v. Dixon, 2 Taunt. 343, it was held that on the warranty of a horse it is not sufficient to give such evidence, as to induce a suspicion that the horse was unsound; if he only throws the soundness in doubt he is not entitled to recover; the plaintiff must positively prove that the horse was unsound at the time of sale. I think the evidence of the veterinary surgeon in this case does more than throw a doubt on the soundness of the horse at the time of sale. If his evidence is to be believed, the horse was unsound at that time.

In Joliff v. Bendall, Ry. & M. 136, where witnesses gave their opinion that certain sheep died from a disease that was hereditary, Abbott, C.J., left it to the jury to say, whether at the time of the sale, the sheep had existing in their blood or constitution the disease of which they afterwards died; or, whether it had arisen from any subsequent cause.