284 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



the absence of statutory provision) must be based 

 on a contract, expressed or implied; and in the 

 absence of evidence showing such contract there 

 is no authority to submit the theory of a lien to 

 the jury.2^ "Wliere the statute provided for an 

 agister's lien it has been held that a man who 

 simply pastured a horse was not entitled to the 

 lien, for he was not in the business of agisting.^" 

 So, also, where the statute provided for a lien for 

 livery keepers, it was held that a teamster who 

 kept another horse in the stable with his own 

 horses, but who is neither an innkeeper nor a 

 livery keeper, has no right of lien on the horse. ^^ 

 A person who simply furnishes a certain amount 

 of feed for stock, has no lien.*^ On the other hand, 

 in Nebraska it was held that one who feeds and 

 cares for stock in pursuance of a contract with the 

 owner has a lien on such stock for such feed and 

 care.^^ 



The agister's lien does not cover a servant em- 

 ployed in the care of animals.** A person hired as 

 a groom for specified time has no lien on the horse 

 for his services ; but having paid for the food and 

 shoeing he is entitled to a lien for those items, hav- 

 ing succeeded to the farrier's rights.*^ 



Com. Co., 87 S. W. 614, 113 Mo. 43 Weber v. Whetstone, 53 



App. 409. Neb. 371, 73 N. W. 695. 



39 Cunningham v. Hammill, ** Skinner v. Caughey, 64 



84 Mo. App. 389. Minn. 375, 67 N. W. 203 ; Under- 

 go Seale v. MeCarty, 148 Cal. wood v. Birdsell, 6 Mont. 141', 



61, 82 Pac. 845. 9 Pae. 992; Bailey v. Davis, 



4iGoell V. Morse, 126 Mass. 19 Ore. 217, 23 Pac. 881; 



480. Hooker v. McAllister, 12 Wash. 



*2 W. H. Howard Com. Co. v. 46, 40 Pac. 617. 



National L. S. Bank, 93 111. 45 Hoover v. Epler, 52 Pa. 



473. 522. 



