286 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



held that the agister's lien takes supremacy over 

 the mortgage.^^ In one case this decision was on 

 the ground that the mortgage was executed while 

 the mortgagee knew that the stock was in the care 

 of the agister,^^ A mortgage recorded prior to the 

 agistment has been given supremacy of right ; ^" 

 but it has also been held that the mortgagee 

 waives his priority right by his failure to act.^^ 



It would seem that the agister's right must be 

 considered as prior to the mortgage so long as the 

 possession of the animals remained in the hands 

 of the mortgagor; ^^ and that after foreclosure his 

 lien would remain supreme against the mortgagee 

 as the new owner. 



238. Right of Sale. Either under the statutes 

 or by special contract the agister, or other bailee, 

 may have a right to sell the animals in his care 

 to satisfy his demands. Otherwise his lien would 

 sometimes be of small value; for so long as the 

 animals remain they must be fed and cared for, 

 and these matters imply added expense on his 

 part. But, though he may have a lien upon all the 

 animals agisted, his right of sale only includes so 

 many as may be necessary to cover his claim. The 

 sale of other animals will not be considered as 

 void, but as voidable.^" (§§232,241.) The owner 



55 Case V, Allen, 21 Kas. 217; Wright v. Sherman, 3 S, Dak. 



Corning V. Ashley, 51 Hun, 483; 290, 52 N. W. 1093, 17 L. E. 



Willard v. Whinfield, 2 Kas. A. 792. 



App. 53. 58 Woodard v. Myers, 15 



50 Tabor v. Salisbury, 3 Col. Ind. App. 42, 43 N. E. 573. 



App. 335, 33 Pae. 190. 59 Blain v. Manning, 36 111. 



CTHaneh v. Eipley, 127 Ind. App. 214. 



151, 26 N. E. 70; Woodard v. eo Whitlock v. Heard, la Ala. 



Myers, 15 Ind. App. 42; Bis- 776, 48 Am. Dec. 73. 

 sell V. Pearce, 28 N. Y. 252; 



