118 AN innkeeper's lien. 



horse was once allowed out. (a) The first ground — viz., 

 power to sell, has been the subject of a legislative enactment 

 whereby, after six Aveeks, an innkeeper is empowered to sell 

 a horse or carriage of a guest in satisfaction of his bill. (6) 

 The second ground of the decision is based upon the doctrine 

 that the right of lien exists only as long as the subject is 

 retained ; and that a cessation of possession is equivalent to 

 an abandonment of the claim. 



Both in England and Scotland an innkeeper is bound to 

 take in a guest, and also his horse if he has accommodation. (c) 

 In England, however, a livery- stable keeper, not an inn- 

 keeper, is not bound to take in a horse, consequently, he is 

 denied a lien for its keep and attention, and a horse under 

 his charge is liable to distress for rent ;{cl) In Scotland the 

 question of lien has not been raised, but it is certainly the 

 practice to exercise it ; and it is thought that horses sent to 

 livery are exempt from the landlord's hypothec. (e) In both 

 countries a guest's horse is exempt from distress for an inn- 

 keeper's rent, (/) and this holds where an innkeeper uses 

 premises belonging to a third party, for a particular 

 occasion. ((/) The lien of an innkeeper also is, like all 

 rights of retention (except the general retention of a factor), 

 a personal right inseparable from the contract out of which 

 it arises ; (Ji) and, accordingly, it has been held that, on a 

 sale of horses, detained by an innkeeper for his bill, the 

 lien ceased, and the true owner, not being the guest who in- 

 curred the bill, could have claimed the price from the buyer, (i) 

 It extends to a horse not the property of the guest. (ji) 



(rt) Jones V. Pearlc, 1 Strangr. 556. 

 (6) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 38, 1. 



(c) B.C. ii. 99 ; Smith's L.C. i. 142, and cases there cited, 



(d) Parsons v. Ginrjdl, 1847, 4 C.B. 545; Smith v. Bcarlorc, cit., p. 117; 

 Yorke v. Grccnhanyh, 2 Lord Kayinond, 866. 



(e) See § 89. 



(/) § 89, English law, Co. Litt. 47 ; 34 & 35 Vict. c. 79. 



(fj) See Pollock, C.B., in Williams v. Holmes, 1852. 22 L. J., E.x. 283. 



(A) B. Pr. 1417. 



(i) Mullincr v. Florence, 1878, L.Pv. 3 Q.B.D. 484. 



(j) Threfall v. Boruick; 1875, L.R. 10 Q.B. 210. 



