226 



INNKEEPEKS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



moved to de- 

 feat the lien. 



Keep during- 

 detention. 



He cannot 

 use a Horse 

 he detains. 



He could not 

 formerly sell 

 a Horse he 

 detained. 



possession of it to defeat the lien, the Innliceper may re- 

 take it without force, for the lien is not put an end to by 

 his having thus parted with the possession of it {a). But 

 it is held that the Iinil-ceper must make fi'esh pursuit 

 after it, and retake it, otherwise the custody is lost ; for he 

 cannot talce it at any other time, as it is in the nature of a 

 D/sfress. But where there is a lien by agreement, it is in 

 the nature of a Pledge, and the Innheeper may retake the 

 Horse, not only on fresh pursuit, but also wherever he 

 finds it (^). 



It has been held that an In)ikeeper who detains a Horse 

 for his keep has a lien upon him for the necessary food 

 supplied when thus in his possession, even if it be given 

 against the express direction of the owner. Thus where 

 the owner of a Horse standing at an Inn came and di- 

 rected that the IiviJceeper should not give him any more 

 food, as he would not be responsible for it, and the 

 question ^^'as, whether the OA^'ner was chargeable for the 

 food given after this direction. Chief Justice Holt was at 

 first inclined to consider this a diseharge, and that the 

 Horse, though he might be retained by the Innheeper, 

 was but in the natiu-e of a Distress, and that being in the 

 custody of the Innl-ceper in his Inn, it was a pound 

 eovert, and the Horse consequently ought to be main- 

 tained at his peril. However, he afterwards changed his 

 opinion, and directed that this was no discharge ; for then 

 any Innkeeper might be deceived, and his security would 

 be lessened (r). But his first opinion appears to be con- 

 sistent Avith the law [d). 



Where an Innkeeper detains a Horse for its meat he 

 cannot use it, because he detains it as in the custody of the 

 law, and the detention is in the nature of a distress, which 

 cannot be used by the distrainor (e). 



An Innkeeper could not formerly sell the Horse he de- 

 tained for his meat and so pay himself, because, as the 

 Court said in Jones v. TJiurloe, "he is not to be his own 

 carver" {f). And even if the Horse "eat out the price 



[a) Wallace v. Woodqatc, Ry. & 

 M. 193 ; S. C. 1 C. & P. 575. 



{b) liosse V. Bramstcad, 2 Rol. 

 Eep. 438. 



(f) Gelher v. BerkvJeij, Skin. 648 ; 

 and see Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & 

 W. 270. 



[d) Co. Litt. 47 b; British Em- 

 pire Shipping Co. v. Somes, 28 L. J., 



Q. B. 220 (Ex. Ch.); -S". C. 30 

 L. J., Q. B. 229. See also Scarfe 

 V. Ilorgan, 4 M. & W. 279, 284. 



(f) JJ'estbrook v. Griffith, Moor. 

 870 ; Eobinson v. Walter, 3 Bulstr. 

 270 ; Bac. Abr. tit. Inns and Imi- 

 keepers. 



(/) Jones V. Thurloe, ^Modi. 172 ; 

 S. C. Jones v. Pearle, Str. 556. 



