240 



LIVERY-STABLE KEEPERS, AGISTERS, ETC. 



An action for 

 not taking 

 due care of a 

 Horse 

 founded on 

 contract. 



His posses- 

 sion. 



Does not in- 

 sure a 

 Horse' s 

 safety. 



He is answer- 

 able for 

 Neg-liarence. 



imskillfully built tlirougli the negligence of the contractor 

 and his men ; and he nonsuited the plaintiff, ruling that 

 the defendant's liability was that of an ordinary bailee for 

 hire, and that he was only bound to take ordinary care in the 

 keeping of the Carriages, and that if he had exercised in 

 the employment of the builder such care as an ordinary 

 careful man would use, he was not liable for damage 

 caused by the carelessness of the builder, of which the 

 defendant had no notice. And this nonsuit and ruling 

 were held right. 



An action against a Licenj-stahle Keeper for not taking 

 due and proper care of a Horse of the plaintiff's, whereby 

 damage resulted, is founded on contract, and not in tort, 

 and thus differs from an action against a Farrier, who 

 shoes a Horse negligently, and so commits a breach of a 

 common law duty. Therefore, where less than 20/. is 

 recovered against a Livery-stable Keeper, the plaintiff is 

 deprived of costs by the County Courts Act (30 & 31 Vict. 

 c. 142), s. 5, unless -the Judge certifies that there was 

 sufficient reason for bringing the action in the High 

 Court (o) . 



AGISTER. 



An Agister has such a possession that he may maintain 

 Trespass against a person who has taken away any Horse 

 or Cattle left with him to be agisted {p). He may also 

 maintain an action of trover for Horses or other Cattle 

 during their agistment (q) . If a Horse so left be sold by 

 him, it is no Larceny (r) ; and if it be stolen, and the thief 

 prosecuted, the property may be laid as his [s). 



A person who takes in Horses to agist does not, like an 

 Innkeeper, insure their safety. He is obliged to use rea- 

 sonable care, but is not answerable for the wantonness or 

 mischief of others. For if a Horse has been taken from his 

 premises, or has been lost by accident, against which he 

 could not guard, he is not responsible (/). 



A person who takes Horses to agist is answerable, 

 either if a particular negligence be proved, thi'ough which 

 the Horse was lost, or if, in ignorance of the special cir- 



(o) Lcggc v. Tucker, 1 H. & N. 

 500, decided iinder 13 & 14 Vict, 

 c. 61, s. 11. 



{p) See 4 Inst. 293; 2 Eol. Abr. 

 551 ; WoodwarcV s case, 2 East's P. 

 C. 653. 



{q) Clark v. Roe, 4 Ir. C. L. Rep. 7. 



(/■) Tux V. ^mlth, 1 Mood. C. C. 

 473. 



(.v) WoodwariV s case, 2 East's P. 

 C. 653. 



(0 Broadwater V. Blot, Holt, 547. 

 See Corbctt v. Paekingto», 6 B. & C. 

 268 ; Lib. Plac. 14. 



