COMPENSATION 109 



not only for the last sei-vice, but also for former 

 serving of that mare and others. Scarfe made 

 tender of the fee for last service, which was re- 

 fused. He then brought action against Morgan 

 to secure possession of the mare, or her full value. 

 His first claim, that the contract having been made 

 on Sunday was illegal, was put aside by the 

 court on the ground that it was a completed con- 

 tract. Scarfe then claimed that Morgan, by com- 

 bining old accounts in his lien vitiated the right 

 of lien. The court held, however, that the different 

 servings were not independent accounts, but that 

 each was a part of one general account, and that 

 the lien held. (§ 234.) 



82. Voiding a Lien. Possession is essential in 

 liens. Therefore, when the veterinarian volun- 

 tarily relinquishes the possession of the animal to 

 the owner, or to others not in his own employ, he 

 thereby loses his right of lien, and according to 

 the general rule a lien once lost cannot be re- 

 vived.^'' But where the agister temporarily left 

 the animals in the charge of another, and during 

 that time the owner took possession, the lien was 

 not lost.^^ It is generally held that surrender to 

 anyone not in the employ of the holder of the lien 

 voids its operation. (§§ 208, 233-240.) 



The right of lien may be lost by agreeing to 



3G Fishell V. Morris, 57 Conn. Mo. App. 1 ; Kroll v. Ernst, 34 

 547, 18 Atl. 717; 6 L. R. A. 82; Neb. 482, 51 N. W. 1032; Car- 

 Wright V. Waddell, 89 Iowa dinal v. Edwards, 5 Neb. 36. 

 350, 56 N. W. 650; Danforth v. 37 WUlard v. Whinfield, 2 

 Pratt, 42 Me. 50; McPherson Kas. App. 53, 43 Pac. 314; 

 First National Bank v. Barse Weber v. Whetstone, 53 Neb. 

 Live Stock Com. Co., 61 Mo. 371, 73 N. W. 695. 

 App. 143; Powers v. Botts, 58 



