BAILMENT 285 
A lien in favor of those who have kept an animal 
does not cover an isolated case of feeding.** The 
owner of a farm is not entitled to a lien on the 
stock of a farm hand in his employ, though it was 
pastured on his land, and fed his grain.47 Where 
evidence showed that the defendant took fifty 
head of cattle it was held to imply that the defend- 
ant was in the business and had a lien.*® 
A statute is not retroactive, and gives no right 
of lien for accounts before it went into effect. 
236. Trainer’s Lien. The right of a trainer to a 
lien for his services has been frequently recog- 
nized.©° The fact that the animal was to be ille- 
gally run for bets will not make the contract to 
train illegal.=! The trainer has a common law lien 
for training and a statutory len for the keep, 
according to some decisions.®? In one Iowa case 
it was held that the Iowa law did not give trainer 
a lien.5? A trainer has no lien for shoeing where 
no charge was made against him for the work.** 
237. Priority of Right. There has been an ap- 
parent disagreement as to the relative rights of 
an agister, with a lien, and the holder of a mort- 
gage upon the stock. In several cases it has been 
46 Conklin v. Carver, 19 Ind. 
226, 
47 Wright v. Waddell, 89 
Iowa, 350, 56 N. W. 650. 
48 Bunnell v. Davisson, 85 
Ind. 557. 
49 Allen v. Ham, 63 Me. 532. 
50 Bevan v. Waters, 3 C. & 
P. 520, 14 E. C. L. 693; Jack- 
son v. Holland, 31 Ga. 339; 
Scott v. Mercer, 98 Iowa, 258, 
67 N. W. 108; Allen v. Ham, 
63 Me. 532; Shields v. Dodge, 
14 Lea, 356. 
51 Harris v. Woodruff, 124 
Mass. 205. 
52 Towle vy. Raymond, 58 N. 
H. 64; Farney v. Kerr (Tenn.), 
48 8. W. 103. 
53 Scott v. Mercer, 63 Iowa, 
325. 
54 Barringer v. Burns, 108 N. 
C. 606, 13 8. E. 142. 
