343 



liable for any injury done by them." Samuel v. 

 Wright, 5 Esp. 263 ; and the same doctrine is held 

 in Smith v. Lawrence, 2 M. & R. 1. 



It is not within the scope of my work to enter 

 upon the subject of post-horse duties, though the 

 decisions on points connected with it, cannot but 

 be interesting to a large class of my readers. The 

 cases last quoted contain every other matter of 

 interest likely to occur to the job-master or his 

 customers. 



The right of inn-keepers is decided in Johnson v. 

 Hill, 3 Starkie, 172, where it is held, that " an inn- 

 keeper has a lien upon a horse left with him, for 

 the keep, unless he knows that the horse has been 

 illegally obtained." 



The exception in this case clearly means, that 

 the innkeeper, though he may assert a lien on the 

 horse against the party who left him in his charge 

 and against all other parties, if he has no notice of 

 a better title to him, cannot detain him from a third 

 party who has a better title, if he has received him 

 into his stable with notice of that fact. But I 

 infer, though doubtfully, that the innkeeper, to 

 deprive himself of his lien, must not only have such 

 notice, but have done some act of a fraudulent cha- 

 racter, accessary to the illegal taking of the horse ; 

 for otherwise, he might have maintained him bona 



