242 LIVERY-STABLE KEEPERS, AGISTERS, ETC. 



ground for disturbing the verdict, as such knowledge was 

 not essential to his liability under his contract as an Agister 

 to take reasonable care of the horse. 

 The Horse's It is only just, that if A. send his horse to B. to be kept 

 con ion. £^j, j^^j^ ^|. gj.jjgg f^y, r^ certain time, B. should be answer- 

 able to him, if the Horse when returned appear in worse 

 condition than Horses usually are under such circum- 

 stances, unless B. show that the Horse has been in a good 

 pasture, and therefore that the falling off must have arisen 

 from some fault in his constitution. But were B. to agree 

 to take in A.'s horse as one of ten to graze on a certain 

 field, in that case B. would not be answerable, if A.'s 

 Horse fell off in condition in consequence of the field being 

 eaten bare. 

 Eatage let for It will be seen by a modern case that on a demise of 

 time*^^^ land or the vesture of land (as the eafage of a field) for a 



specific term at a certain rent, there is no implied obliga- 

 tion on the part of the lessor that it shall be fit for the 

 purpose for which it is taken. Therefore, where A. had 

 agreed in writing to take the eafage of twenty-four acres of 

 land from B. for seven months, at a rent of 40/., and then 

 stocked the land with beasts, several of which died a few 

 days afterwards, from the effect of a poisonous substance, 

 which had accidentally been spread over the field without 

 B.'s knowledge among some manure ; the Court of 

 Exchequer held that A. was not entitled on that account 

 to throw up the land, but continued liable for the whole 

 rent. Mr. Baron Parke saying, in the course of the argu- 

 ment, " It comes simply to the question, whether there is 

 an implied undertaking that the grass shall be fit for the 

 eatage of cattle ; if there is, cadit qncestio ; if not, the 

 plaintiff has jDerformed his engagement, and the defendant 

 has had all he bargained for, namely, a demise of the 

 eatage for six months, and must pay for all" (<?). 

 Agister has If a man take in Horses, kine or other cattle to de- 



no lien. pastui'e, on a contract at so much a head per week, he 



cannot detain them for the value of the Agistment, unless 

 there is a special agreement to that effect {d). And the law 

 on this subject was laid down and explained in the case of 

 Jctclson V. Cummins (e), in which Mr. Baron Parke said, 

 " I think that by the common law no lien exists in the 

 case of Agistment. The general Rule as laid down by 



(f) Sutton V. Temple, 12 IL & W. 273 ; Ilkhayds v. Sijmons, 8 Q. B. 

 60. 93. 



(d) Chapman v. Alien, Cro. Car. (f) Jarlson v. Ciiminimt, 5 M. & 



W. 312. 



