286 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
held that the agister’s lien takes supremacy over 
the mortgage.®> In one case this decision was on 
the ground that the mortgage was executed while 
the mortgagee knew that the stock was in the care 
of the agister.°> A mortgage recorded prior to the 
agistment has been given supremacy of right; >" 
but it has also been held that the mortgagee 
waives his priority right by his failure to act.°® 
It would seem that the agister’s right must be 
considered as prior to the mortgage so long as the 
possession of the animals remained in the hands 
of the mortgagor; *® and that after foreclosure his 
lien would remain supreme against the mortgagee 
as the new owner. 
238. Right of Sale. Hither under the statutes 
or by special contract the agister, or other bailee, 
may have a right to sell the animals in his care 
to satisfy his demands. Otherwise his lien would 
sometimes be of small value; for so long as the 
animals remain they must be fed and cared for, 
and these matters imply added expense on his 
part. But, though he may have a lien upon all the 
animals agisted, his right of sale only includes so 
many as may be necessary to cover his claim. The 
sale of other animals will not be considered as 
void, but as voidable.®°  (§§ 232, 241.) The owner 
58 Case v. Allen, 21 Kas. 217; Wright v. Sherman, 3 S. Dak. 
Corning v. Ashley, 51 Hun, 483; 290, 52 N. W. 1093, 17 L. R. 
Willard v. Whinfield, 2 Kas. A. 792. 
App. 53. 58 Woodard v. Myers, 15 
56 Tabor v. Salisbury, 3 Col. 
App. 335, 33 Pae. 190. 
57 Hanch v. Ripley, 127 Ind. 
151, 26 N. E. 70; Woodard v. 
Myers, 15 Ind. App. 42; Bis- 
sell v. Pearce, 28 N. Y. 252; 
Ind. App. 42, 43 N. E. 573. 
59 Blain v. Manning, 36 Ill. 
App. 214. 
60 Whitlock v. Heard, 13 Ala. 
776, 48 Am. Dec. 73. 
