VETERINARY SURGEON AND FARRIER. 233 



particular time, for the lien does not extend to any pre- to each parti- 

 vious account ; and when this point was decided by the ^"^^"^ *^"^^' 

 Court of Uueen's Bench, Lord Ellenborough said, "Grow- 

 ing liens are always to be looked at with jealousy, as 

 they are encroachments on the common law. If they 

 are encouraged in practice, the Farrier will be claiming 

 a lien upon a Horse sent to him to be shod. It is not 

 for the convenience of the public that these liens should 

 be extended further than they are already established by 

 law"(«). 



In the case of Scarfe v. Morgan {h) a difficulty arose Liability to 

 out of the circumstance that a living chattel might be- feed a Horse 

 come expensive to the detainer, and would raise the ^^'^*^"^®<^- 

 question as to who was liable to feed it intermediately. 

 But this difficulty was answered by referring to the 

 analogous case of a Distress kept in a pound covert, where 

 he who distrains is compellable to take reasonable care of 

 the chattel distrained, whether living or inanimate ; and to 

 the case of a lien upon Corn, which requires some labour 

 and expense in the j^roper custody of it (c) . 



HORSEBREAKER, TRAINER, ETC. 



A Horsehreahcr is liable for any damage which through Horsebreaker 

 his negligence may happen to the Horse he is breaking, liable for 

 Thus an action on the Case was brought, and damages thrHOTs*^ 

 recovered against the defendant, to whose charge a Mare 

 had been committed, "to be taught to pace " {d). 



The Horsehrealier, by whose skill the Horse is rendered Horse- 

 manageable, has a lien upon him in respect of his charges; tireaker's lien, 

 and such lien being consistent with the principles of 

 natural equity, is favoured by the law, which in such case 

 is construed liberally {e) . 



It was for a long time doubtful whether in any case a Trainer's lien. 

 Trainer had a lien for the keep and exercise of a Race- 

 horse sent to him to be trained; unless perhaps it was 

 delivered to be trained for the purpose of running a spe- 

 cified Race{f). In Be van v. Waters {g) he was held to 

 have a lien ; and the question also arose in Jacobs v. 



(a) Rushforth v. Kadficld, 7 East, Q. B. 220 (Ex. Ch.). 

 229. (,/) Lib. Plac. 25. 



(i) Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & TV. (V) 8carfe v. Morgan, 4 11. & W 



280. 276. 



{c) See ante, p. 228 ; 12 & 13 Vict. (/) See Jackson v. Cummins, post. 



c. 92, and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 60, s. 1 ; {g) Sevan v. Waters, 3 C. & P. 



also ante, p. 226, British Empire 520. See also Sanderson v. Bell, 2 



Shipping Co. v. Somes, 28 L. J., C. k M. 304. 



