570 NO CUEE NO PAY. 



he did not use that degree of care which miglit be expected from a 

 prudent man towards his own horse, and thougli acting liom fide, was 

 liable to the owner for gross negligence. 



It was decided in Orchurcl v. Rctclcstraiv, that ivhere a liorse is standing 

 at livery, and tlie livery-stahU Tceejper at the owner's request employs a 

 veterinary surgeon, he has no lien on the horse for tlie tatter's charge. In 

 this case the horse was blistered for splints, and on its being demanded 

 the defendant claimed a lien of £23 13s. including his charge for the 

 standing of the horse and tlie hire of a chaise, and 30s. for payment to 

 the veterinary surgeon. Jlaule J. told the jury that the defendant was 

 not entitled to claim a lien upon the horse, either in respect of the 

 charge for its keep, or of the surgeon's charge for blistering, and 

 accordingly a verdict was found in trover for the plaintiff — damages 

 30 gs., being the value of the horse. The Court of Common Pleas 

 confirmed this ruling. Wilde C.J. said, " Suppose the veterinary 

 surgeon had treated the horse unskilfully and damaged it, who would 

 have been responsible to the owner, the livery-stable keeper or the 

 veterinary surgeon ? Clearly not the former. The veterinary surgeon 

 had no lien for his bill, and the livery-stable keeper none for the keep 

 of the horse." Cressivell J. added, " There is no rule of law giving a 

 livery-stable keeper a lien for money expended upon a horse standing 

 at livery at the request of the owner. The case, therefore, does not 

 fall within the rule of law which confers a lien upon one who expends 

 his money or his labour upon a chattel of another." 



Bates V. Hudson was a case of ";io cure no ]jay" The i)laintlff lyroved 

 that he had been emj^loyed by the defendant to cure a flock of 3b0 sheep 

 and 147 lambs of the scab, at so much jier head for each sort. General 

 evidence was given that the plaintiff had performed his contract ; but 

 the defendant proved that the plaintiff at the time he undertook the 

 task did not expect to be paid unless he cured all the flock, whereas he 

 had failed in at least forty cases. Alexander C.B. held that if the 

 plaintiff agreed to cure all the sheep, at all events that was an entire 

 contract, and he could not recover if some of the flock were not cured. 

 The jury found that the complaint had been checked but not subdued, 

 and a verdict was entered for the defendant, which the Court of King's 

 Bench refused to disturb. 



The question of the liabiJUy for the damage where a highly improper 

 application fur a horse is furnished was fully considered in Phillips v. 

 Wood. The defendant was a chemist and druggist, and the first count 

 stated that he had agreed to sell the plaintiff a quantity of ointment, 

 reasonably fit to be api)lied as a blister to horses with puffed legs ; and 

 that though it was defendant's duty to sell him such oinLmeut, he sold 



