LIVERY-STABLE KEEPER. 239 



stable Keeper a lien for money expended upon a Horse 

 standing at livery at the request of the owner {i) . 



Where a Lkery-stahle Keeper brings an action for a What cannot 

 Horse's keep, money received by him as the price of the ^"^ ^®* ?^ V^ 



TT 1 J. £L IX 1 i-i ' • £ ail action for 



Horse, but aiterwards returned on the rescission oi a con- ^ggp^ 

 tract of sale, cannot be set off against him by the defendant. 

 Thus, the plaintiff, a Lii-ery-stahle Keeper, sold for the 

 defendant a Horse and received the price. The purchaser 

 afterwards rescinded the contract on the ground of fraud, 

 and v/as repaid the purchase-money. In an action by the 

 plaintiff for the keep of the Horse, it was held that the 

 defendant could not set off the price as money received for 

 his use, it having ceased to be so when the contract was 

 defeated by the purchaser, although the defendant was ig- 

 norant of the fraud {k) . 



A Livery-stable Keeper who undertakes for reward to He must talie 

 receive a Horse or Carriage and lodge it in a stable or reasonable 

 coach-house, is bound to take reasonable care (/). The Horse, 

 obligation to take reasonable care of the thing entrusted to 

 a bailee of this class, involves in it an obligation to take 

 reasonable care that any building in which it is deposited 

 is in a proper state, so that the thing deposited may be 

 reasonably safe in it ; but no Warranty or obligation is to 

 be implied by law on his part that the building is absolutely 

 safe. The fact that the building has been erected by the 

 Livery-stable Keeper on his own ground makes no differ- 

 ence to his liability {m). 



In Searle v. Lavericli {ii) the plaintiff brought his Horses 

 and two Carriages to the defendant, a Livery-stable 

 Keeper ; the Carriages were placed under a shed on his 

 premises, a charge being made by him in resj)ect of each. 

 The shed had just been erected, the upper part still being 

 in the hands of workmen. The defendant had employed 

 a builder to erect the shed for him as an independent 

 contractor, not as his servant, and he was a competent and 

 proper person to employ. The shed was blown down by a 

 high wind, the defendant being ignorant of any defect in 

 it, and the Carriages were injured, upon which the plaintiff 

 brought an action against him. At the trial, the above 

 facts having been admitted, the Judge rejected evidence 

 to prove that the fall of the shed was owing to its being 



(i) Orchard v. Eackstraw, 9 C. B. Q. B. 122 ; 43 L. J., Q. B. 43 ; 



698. 30 L. T., N. S. 89. 



{k) Murray v. Mann, 2 Ex. 538. {m) Ibid. 



(/) Searle v. Laverick, L. E,., 9 {») Ibid. 



