104 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



animals treated until the bill has been paid. It 

 must be remembered that the veterinary profes- 

 sion arose from the ranks of the farriers, or horse- 

 shoers, so that early decisions are based upon the 

 work of the farrier. Also, that to no small degree 

 the bills of the veterinarians include items for the 

 board of the animals treated; and sometimes the 

 board is the only item. By either common law or 

 statute it would be quite possible for the veterina- 

 rian to have a lien on one and not on the other ac- 

 count. Thus, in an old English decision it was 

 held that the farrier had a lien for curing the ani- 

 mal, but not for feed.^*^ The term ''agister" (or 

 ** agistor") was originally held to mean one who 

 took cattle, or other stock, to pasture. It is ordi- 

 narily held to include other keeping and feeding. 

 By the old English common law an agister had a 

 lien upon the stock in his possession for the pay- 

 ment of the keep of the animals, but this lien was 

 abolished by an act of parliament. On the other 

 hand, many American states have enacted statutes 

 giving a right to such lien, in the case of agisters 

 generally, and for such special occupations as 

 innkeepers and livery keepers. (§§233-240.) 

 The right to hold an animal for both cure and 

 board has been recognized in many cases.^^ It 

 may perhaps be stated as a general rule that the 

 veterinarian has a lien on the animals treated so 

 long as they are in his possession. This rule is 

 not absolute, and is open to question. In one 

 Canadian case the lower court held that the farrier 



soBrenan v. Currint, Say., 50; Lord v. Jones, 24 Me. 439; 

 224. Hoover v. Epler, 52 Pa. St. 



siDanforth v. Pratt, 42 Me. 522. 



