234 INNKEEPERS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



Latour (h), but the case was decided on another point. 

 The doubt seemed to be whether in the contract for 

 training there was a stipulation for the re-delivery of the 

 Horse trained for the purpose of Racing. And in a later 

 case Mr. Baron Alderson said, " It may be very doubtful 

 whether a Trainer would not be considered to be in the 

 situation of a Livery-stahle heeper, if by the contract he 

 is to allow the owner to run the Horse" {i). Mr. Baron 

 Parke, shortly afterwards in another case, said, "As to 

 the case of the training Grroom it is not necessary to say 

 anything, as it has not been formally decided ; for in 

 Jacobs v. Latour {h) the point was left undetermined. 

 It is true there is a Nisi prim decision of Best, 0. J., in 

 Beian v. Waters (k), that the Trainer would have a lien, 

 on the ground of his having expended labour and skill in 

 bringing the animal into condition to run at Races ; but 

 it does not appear to have been present to the mind of the 

 Judge, nor was the usage of training to that effect ex- 

 plained to him, that when Horses are delivered for that 

 purpose the owner has always a right dm-ing the con- 

 tinuance of the process to take the animal away for the 

 purpose of running Races for Plates elsewhere. The right 

 of lien, therefore, must be subservient to this general right 

 which overrules it ; so that I doubt if that doctrine would 

 apply where the animal delivered was a Racehorse, as that 

 case differs much from the ordinary case of training. I do 

 not say that the case of Bevan v. Waters {k) was wrongly 

 decided ; I only doubt if it extends to the case of a Race- 

 horse, unless perhaps he was delivered to the groom to be 

 trained for the pm"pose of running a specified race, when of 

 course these observations would not apply " (/). 



It 'has however been decided in a later case, that the 

 labour and skill employed on a Racehorse b}^ a Trainer 

 are a good foundation for a lien {m). But if by usage or 

 contract the owner may send the Horse to run at any race 

 he chooses, and may select the Jockey, the Trainer has no 

 continuing right of possession and consequently no lien [m) . 

 Stallion- ^]jq owner of a Stallion is entitled to a specific lien on 



Uen. ^^ ^^ ^ the Mare in respect of his charge for covering her. Thus 



[h) Jacobs V. Latour, 2 M. & P. [l) Jackson v. Ctimmins, 5 M. & 



205. W. 350. 



(i) Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & AY. [m) Forth v. Simpson, 13 Q. B. 



276. G80; S. C. 18 L. J., Q. B. 266; 



\k) Bevan v. Waters, 3 C. & P. Lee v. Lricin, 4 Ir. Jur. 372. 

 520. 



