238 



LTYERY-STABLE KEEPERS, AGISTERS, ETC. 



Distinction 

 taken in 

 Parsons v. 

 Gingell. 



Livery -stable 

 Keeper has 

 no lien for 

 keep. 



May have a 

 lien by agree- 

 ment. 



Horse re- 

 moved to 

 defeat such 

 lien. 



Livery -stable 

 Keeper has 

 no lien for 

 money ex- 

 pended on 

 Horse. 



is sent to remain during the owner's pleasure, the feeding 

 and grooming being only incident to the principal 

 object {(l). 



In the case of Parsons v. Gingell (e), the following 

 distinction was taken by Chief Justice Wilde : "If the 

 goods are sent to the premises for the purpose of being 

 dealt with in the way of the party's trade, and are to re- 

 main upon the premises until that purpose is answered, and 

 no longer, the case falls within one class ; but if they are 

 sent for the purpose of remaining there merely at the will 

 of the owner, there being no work to be done upon them, 

 it falls within a totally different consideration." 



A Liverj/stahle Keeper cannot detain a Horse for his 

 keep as an Innkeeper may, because he is not bound to take 

 it, much less can he detain, or be bound to take a Carriage 

 without Horses (/). 



But he may have a lien by special agreement, as where 

 a Mare was placed with a Lirery-stahle Keeper, who ad- 

 vanced money to her owner, and it was agreed that she 

 should remain as a security for the repayment of the sum 

 advanced, and for the expenses of her keep, the Livery- 

 stable Keeper was held to have a lien on her for the amount 

 due (r/)._ 



And if he have such lien by agreement, and the owner 

 of the Horse fraudulently take it out of his possession to 

 defeat the lien, the Livery-stable Keeper may retake it 

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

 having parted with the possession under such circum- 

 stances [h) . 



A Livery-stable Iveeper has no lien on a Horse for money 

 expended by him on the Horse at the request of the owner. 

 Thus in a case in which a Livery-stable iLeej^er had em- 

 ployed a Yeterinary Surgeon at the request of the owner 

 to blister a Horse standing at Livery with him for splints, 

 and had actually paid the bill, it was held that he had no 

 right to detain the Horse for the amount of this bill, 

 inasmuch as the Veterinary Surgeon had no lien for his 

 bill, nor the Livery-stable Keeper for his keep ; and 

 inasmuch as there is no rule of law, which gives a Livery- 



[d) See per Wilde, C. J., Parso/is 

 V. Ginffell, 4 C. B. 558. 



(e) Farso/is v. Gingell, 4 C. B. 

 558 



(/) Barnard v. Soiv, 1 C. & P. 

 366 ; Yorke v. Greenaugh, 2 Ld. 

 Raym. 867; Francis v. Wyatt, 3 



BiuT. 1498 ; ,V. C. 1 Bla. Eep. 485; 

 Parsons v. Gingell, 4 C B. 558 ; 

 -S'. C. 16 L. J., C. P. 227. 



[g) Bonatty v. Crowder, 1 1 Moore, 

 479. 



ill) Wallace v. Woodqate, R. & M. 

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



