AGISTER. 243 



Best, C. J., in Bcvan v. Waters (/), and by this Court in 

 Scarf e v. Morgan {g), is, that by the general law, in the 

 absence of any special agreement, whenever a party has 

 expended labour and skill in the improvement of a chattel 

 bailed to him, he has a lien upon it. Now, the case of 

 Agiafment does not fall within that principle, inasmuch as 

 the Agister does not confer any additional value on the 

 article either by the exertion of any skill of his own, or 

 indirectly by means of any instrument in his possession, as 

 was the case with the Stallion in Scarfe v. Morgan (g) ; he 

 simply takes in the animal to feed it. In addition to 

 which we have the express authority of Chapman v. 

 Allen (h), that an Agister has no lien; and although 

 possibly that case may have been decided on the special 

 ground that there had been an agreement between the 

 parties, or a conversion of the animal had taken place, still 

 it is also quite possible that it might have proceeded on the 

 more general principle that no lien can exist in the case of 

 Agistment ; and it was so understood in this Court in 

 Judson Y. Ethridge{i). The analogy also of the case of 

 the Livery-stable Keeper who has no lien by law, furnishes 

 an additional reason why none can exist here ; for this is a 

 case of an Agistment of milch cows, and from the very 

 nature of the subject-matter, the owner is to have possession 

 of them during the time of milking ; which establishes 

 that it was not intended that the Agister was to have the 

 entire possession of the thing bailed ; and there is nothing 

 to show that the owner might not for that purpose have 

 taken the animals out of the field wherein they were 

 grazing if he had thought proper so to do. This claim of 

 lien is therefore inconsistent with the necessary enjoyment 

 of the property by the owner." 



But where there is a special agreement, there may of May have a 

 course be a lien (/.•). Thus the plaintiff having a Cow at lienbyagree- 

 grass in defendant's field, and being indebted for the 

 Agistment, agreed with him that the Cow should be 

 security ; that he would not remove her till the defendant 

 was paid, and that, if he did, the defendant might take 

 her where she might be, and keep her till he was paid. 

 The plaintiff removed the Cow -svithout having paid the 



(/) Sevan v. Waters, 3 C. & P. 278. 



520 ; S. C. M. & M. 236. (i) Judson v. Ethrichje, 1 Cr. & M. 



ici) Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & W. 743. 



283 ; S. C. 1 Horn. & Hurl. 292. [k) Richards v. Si/mons, 8 Q. B. 



{h) Chapman v. Alien, Cro. Car. 90. 



ii2 



