344 



Jide, and as the horse might have died for want of 

 food, if he had refused to receive him, it seems, on 

 principles of common sense, that he is entitled to 

 detain him for his keep. 



The case of livery-stable keepers stands on very 

 different grounds. The inn-keeper is compellable 

 by lav^, to take in strangers and their cattle for 

 reasonable compensation ; as therefore he has no 

 option to refuse the accommodation, it is equitable 

 that he should be entitled to indemnify himself; 

 but this obligation does not attach to livery-stable 

 keepers ; with them it is matter of choice whether 

 they will receive a stranger's horse ; it has there- 

 fore been held, that a special contract is necessary, 

 but at the same time, where that special contract 

 has been made, it is strictly enforced. The 

 authority on this point, is the case of Wallace v. 

 Woodgate, in 1 Carrington and Payne, 575. " A 

 stable keeper, by special agreement, may acquire a 

 lien on horses for their keep -, and if the owner, to 

 defeat such lien, gets them away by fraud, the 

 stable keeper has a right to get possession of 

 them, and for so doing, he will not be answerable 

 in trover; for the lien is not put an end to, by 

 the parting with the possession under such circum- 

 stances." 



It is very important, however, to observe, that 



