590 LIEN BY TEAINER OF KACE-HOESES. 



it a different animal, by the application of the skill and labour of the 

 bailee." 



In Jackson y. Cummins and Others, which was a case of trespass for 

 entering an outhouse of the plaintiif' s, and seizing and driving away 10 

 cows which had been depastured on the defendant's land, the jury 

 found that there was no such agreement, that the defendant should 

 retain and keep possession of the cows until the amount due for pasturage 

 was paid, and gave their verdict for the plaintiff, ParTce B. reserving 

 leave to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, if the Court were of 

 opinion that a lien existed at common law for the agistment of cattle, 

 but the rule was discharged. 



It was ruled by Parke B., in Binns v. Piijoff, that an innkeeper has no 

 lien on a horse for its keep, loiJess it he Irovijht hy a guest ; but he can 

 only retain it for its own keep, not for that of others the property of 

 the same person. And see Smith v. Deartore. Speaking of a lien on 

 a racehorse, in Forth v. Simpson, Patteson J. said : " An innkeeper's 

 lien stands on a different principle ; he has a lien on the guest's horse, 

 because the law obliges him to take it in. My brother Parke's view of 

 a trainer's lien, as stated by him in Jackson v. Cummins, exactly sup- 

 ports our decision, which is also quite consistent with his observation 

 in the same case, that where a horse is to be trained for a specified race 

 the trainer may have a lien for his charges until the horse is given up." 

 The judo-ment oi Erie J. in this case shows that an ordinary trainer has 

 no lien on the horses vnder his charge. His lordship said : " A trainer 

 of racehorses has the benefit of one general principle, that the person 

 exercising care and skill in the improvement of a chattel is entitled to 

 a lien on such chattel for his charges in respect of his care and skill ; 

 but there is another general principle, that in order to complete a right 

 of lien there must be a continuing right of possession, and this principle 

 defeats the claim of lien in the present case. It is quite clear, upon 

 the evidence, that the owner was entitled to have his horses re-delivered 

 to him for the purpose of running at any races he pleased, and this is 

 quite inconsistent with the trainer's right of continuing possession." 

 Hence it would seem that if a case arose under the "half-profits" 

 principle which has si)rung up of late years, whereby the owner sends 

 his horse to a trainer and sti])nlates that he is to train and keep him 

 free of expense, and run him where he likes, and to give the owner half 

 his winnings, that the trainer would have a lien. 



SuV)ject to the above qualification, which was made by the Court of 

 Queen's Bench in Forth v. Simpson, and which seems to have struck 

 Aldirson B. in Smrfe v. Morgan, the general ride of lien was thus ex- 

 plained by Parke B. in the latter case : " The artificer to whom goods 



