284 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
the absence of statutory provision) must be based 
on a contract, expressed or implied; and in the 
absence of evidence showing such contract there 
is no authority to submit the theory of a lien to 
the jury.*° Where the statute provided for an 
agister’s lien it has been held that a man who 
simply pastured a horse was not entitled to the 
lien, for he was not in the business of agisting.*° 
So, also, where the statute provided for a lien for 
livery keepers, it was held that a teamster who 
kept another horse in the stable with his own 
horses, but who is neither an innkeeper nor a 
livery keeper, has no right of lien on the horse.* 
A person who simply furnishes a certain amount 
of feed for stock, has no lien.4? On the other hand, 
in Nebraska it was held that one who feeds and 
cares for stock in pursuance of a contract with the 
owner has a lien on such stock for such feed and 
care.*8 
The agister’s lien does not cover a servant em- 
ployed in the care of animals.*# A person hired as 
a groom for specified time has no lien on the horse 
for his services; but having paid for the food and 
shoeing he is entitled to a lien for those items, hav- 
ing succeeded to the farrier’s rights.* 
Com. Co., 87 S. W. 614, 113 Mo. 43 Weber v. Whetstone, 53 
App. 409. Neb. 371, 73 N. W. 695. 
39 Cunningham v. Hammill, 44Skinner v. Caughey, 64 
84 Mo. App. 389. Minn. 375, 67 N. W. 203; Under- 
40 Seale v. McCarty, 148 Cal. wood v. Birdsell, 6 Mont. 14z, 
61, 82 Pac. 845, 9 Pac. 992; Bailey v. Davis, 
41 Goell v. Morse, 126 Mass. 19 Ore. 217, 23 Pac. 881; 
480. Hooker v. McAllister, 12 Wash. 
42 W. H. Howard Com. Co. v. 46, 40 Pac. 617. 
National L. 8. Bank, 93 Til. 45 Hoover v. Epler, 52 Pa. 
473. 522. 
