COMPENSATION 109 
not only for the last service, but also for former 
serving of that mare and others. Scarfe made 
tender of the fee for last service, which was re- 
fused. He then brought action against Morgan 
to secure possession of the mare, or her full value. 
His first claim, that the contract having been made 
on Sunday was illegal, was put aside by the 
court on the ground that it was a completed con- 
tract. Scarfe then claimed that Morgan, by com- 
bining old accounts in his lien vitiated the right 
of lien. The court held, however, that the different 
servings were not independent accounts, but that 
each was a part of one general account, and that 
the lien held. (§ 234.) 
82. Voiding a Lien. Possession is essential in 
liens. Therefore, when the veterinarian volun- 
tarily relinquishes the possession of the animal to 
the owner, or to others not in his own employ, he 
thereby loses his right of lien, and according to 
the general rule a lien once lost cannot be re- 
vived.26 But where the agister temporarily left 
the animals in the charge of another, and during 
that time the owner took possession, the lien was 
not lost.’7 It is generally held that surrender to 
anyone not in the employ of the holder of the lien 
voids its operation. (§§ 208, 233-240.) 
The right of lien may be lost by agreeing to 
36 Fishell v. Morris, 57 Conn. Mo. App. 1; Kroll v. Ernst, 34 
547, 18 Atl. 717; 6 L. R. A. 82; Neb. 482, 51 N. W. 1032; Car- 
Wright v. Waddell, 89 Iowa dinal v. Edwards, 5 Neb. 36. 
350, 56 N. W. 650; Danforth v. 37 Willard v. Whinfield, 2 
Pratt, 42 Me. 50; McPherson Kas. App. 53, 43 Pac. 314; 
First National Bank v. Barse Weber v. Whetstone, 53 Neb. 
Live Stock Com. Co. 61 Mo. 371, 73 N. W. 695. 
App. 143; Powers v. Botts, 58 
