104 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
animals treated until the bill has been paid. It 
must be remembered that the veterinary profes- 
sion arose from the ranks of the farriers, or horse- 
shoers, so that early decisions are based upon the 
work of the farrier. Also, that to no small degree 
the bills of the veterinarians include items for the 
board of the animals treated; and sometimes the 
board is the only item. By either common law or 
statute it would be quite possible for the veterina- 
rian to have a lien on one and not on the other ac- 
count. Thus, in an old English decision it was 
held that the farrier had a lien for curing the ani- 
mal, but not for feed.*° The term ‘‘agister’’ (or 
‘“‘agistor’’) was originally held to mean one who 
took cattle, or other stock, to pasture. It is ordi- 
narily held to include other keeping and feeding. 
By the old English common law an agister had a 
lien upon the stock in his possession for the pay- 
ment of the keep of the animals, but this lien was 
abolished by an act of parliament. On the other 
hand, many American states have enacted statutes 
giving a right to such lien, in the case of agisters 
generally, and for such special occupations as 
innkeepers and livery keepers. (§§ 233-240.) 
The right to hold an animal for both cure and 
board has been recognized in many cases.*! It 
may perhaps be stated as a general rule that the 
veterinarian has a lien on the animals treated so 
long as they are in his possession. This rule is 
not absolute, and is open to question. In one 
Canadian case the lower court held that the farrier 
30Brenan v. Currint, Say. 50; Lord v. Jones, 24 Me. 439; 
224, Hoover v. Epler, 52 Pa. St. 
31 Danforth v. Pratt, 42 Me. 522. 
