BAILMENT 285 



A lien in favor of those who have kept an animal 

 does not cover an isolated case of feeding.^*^ The 

 owner of a farm is not entitled to a lien on the 

 stock of a farm hand in his employ, though it was 

 pastured on his land, and fed his grain.^'^ Where 

 evidence showed that the defendant took fifty 

 head of cattle it was held to imply that the defend- 

 ant was in the business and had a lien.^^ 



A statute is not retroactive, and gives no right 

 of lien for accounts before it went into effect."*^ 



236. Trainer's Lien. The right of a trainer to a 

 lien for his services has been frequently recog- 

 nized.^*' The fact that the animal was to be ille- 

 gally run for bets will not make the contract to 

 train illegal.^^ The trainer has a common law lien 

 for training and a statutory lien for the keep, 

 according to some decisions.^ ^ In one Iowa case 

 it was held that the Iowa law did not give trainer 

 a lien.^^ A trainer has no lien for shoeing where 

 no charge was made against him for the work.^* 



237. Priority of Right. There has been an ap- 

 parent disagreement as to the relative rights of 

 an agister, with a lien, and the holder of a mort- 

 gage upon the stock. In several cases it has been 



46Conklin v. Carver, 19 Ind. 63 Me. 532; Shields v. Dodge, 



226. 14 Lea, 356. 



47 Wright V. Waddell, 89 si Harris v. Woodruff, 124 

 Iowa, 350, 56 N. W. 650. Mass. 205. 



48 Bunnell v. Davisson, 85 52 Towle v. Eaymond, 58 N. 

 Ind. 557. H. 64; Farney v. Kerr (Tenn.), 



49 Allen V. Ham, 63 Me. 532. 48 S. W. 103. 



BO Bevan v. Waters, 3 C. & 53 Scott v. Mercer, 63 Iowa, 



P. 520, 14 E. C. L. 693; Jack- 325. 



son V. Holland, 31 Ga. 339; 64 Barringer v. Burns, 108 N. 



Scott V. Mercer, 98 Iowa, 258, C. 606, 13 S. E. 142. 

 67 N. W. 108; Allen v. Ham, 



