NO LIEN IN CASE OF AGISTMENT. 589 



more : "It does not appear to have been decided on the "Tonnd supposed, 

 but rather on the ground that a person taking in cattle to agist could 

 not detain them until the price be paid ; or if he could in general do so, 

 yet that in the particular case the defendant was guilty of a conversion 

 as against the plaintiff, who was a purchaser of the cattle, by having 

 delivered them over to a third person, on receiving from such third 

 person the amount of his demand." 



And in Hohbij v. R^issell (exor. de son fort of John Smith), where it 

 was in evidence that the defendant, after the death of John Smith, 

 obtained possession of a pair of new boots, a cow and calf, a barren 

 cow, a pony-mare and colt, and a hackney mare, which had been his 

 property ; and that at the time of his death the cow and calf were 

 agisted with Mr. E. Jones, and that the defendant paid Mr. E. Jones 

 for their agistment, in order to obtain possession of them, Cresswell J. 

 ruled that the defendant was not entitled to any allowance in respect 

 of what he paid Mr. E. Jones, as the latter had no lien on the cattle 

 for their agistment ; and the Court of Exchequer refused a rule for a 

 new trial. 



The cases on the subject were also alluded to at some length by Lord 

 Lyndhurst C.B., in his judgment in Judson v. Ether idge, where to a 

 count in detinue defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had delivered the 

 horse to him to be stabled and taken care of, and fed and kept by 

 him for the plaintiff for reward, and that £10 became due to him from 

 the plaintiff as a reasonable reward, and so justified the detainer for 

 that sum ; but on general demurrer the plea was held bad. Lord 

 Lyndhurst C.B. said : " Upon this plea, the question is whether, on 

 the state of facts disclosed, the defendant has or has not a lien upon 

 the horse. I am of opinion that he has no lien. The present case is 

 distinguishable from the cases of workmen, and artificers, and persons 

 carrying on a particular trade, who have been held to have a lien by 

 the value of labour performed in the course of their trade upon chattels 

 bailed to them. The decisions on the subject seem all one way. In 

 ChaTpman v. Allen, it was decided that a person receiving cattle to agist 

 had no lien. In Yorl(e v. Greenhaugh, it was held, not merely by C.J. 

 Holt,, but by the whole Court, in their decision, that a livery-staih 

 keejier had no lien." Bolland B., who acknowledged that, according to 

 Jacobs V. Latovr, a trainer has a lien, added : " The doctrine might 

 perhaps be extended further, so as to embrace the case of a breaker 

 into whose hands a young horse is placed to be broken in. The breaker 

 makes it a different animal. The chattel is improved by the applica- 

 tion of his labour and skill. In the present case it does not appear 

 that anything was to be done to the animal, to improve it or render 



