288 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
having left the field in which they did the dam- 
age, they may still be impounded if in a different 
field.*6 When thus distrained they must be kept 
strictly confined; it is not sufficient to put them in 
a pasture.*? The distrainer’s lien is waived by the 
release of the stock; ®* and it is extinguished by a 
tender of payment for damages.®® The distrainer 
must give such legal notice as is provided by the 
law. The lien may be lost by a failure to adver- 
tise,”° or by putting the animals to work.” It is 
no excuse for failure to advertise, as the law re- 
quired, that the owner has identified his animals 
and promised to prove ownership.7? But when 
the owner sent word that the finder need not ad- 
vertise the horse, the owner is estopped from mak- 
ing the failure to advertise a ground for failure 
to pay for the keep.7* The taker up of animals 
estrayed contrary to law, or distrained for tres- 
passing, has a lien for lawful charges."4 
Where the law provides that the distrainer, or 
finder of an estrayed animal may sell the animal, 
but requires that a notice be sent to the owner 
66 McKeen v. Converse, 68 
N. H. 173, 39 Atl. 435. 
67 Harriman v. Fifield, 36 Vt. 
341. 
68 Dunbar v. DeBoer, 44 Ill. 
App. 615. 
69 McPherson v. James, 69 
Tl. App. 337; Leavitt v. 
Thompson, 52 N. Y. 62. 
70Cory v. Dennis, 93 Ala. 
440, 9 So. 302; MeMillan v. 
Andrew, 50 Ill. 282. 
71 Weber v. Hartman, 7 Col. 
13, 1 Pac. 230; Parker v. King, 
Ga. Dec. Pt. 1, 181. 
72 Wright v. Richmond, 21 
Mo. App. 76. 
73 Campbell v. Headon, 89 Ill. 
App. 172. 
7™Garabrant v. Vaughn, 2 
B. Mon. 327; Ford v. Ford, 3 
Wis. 399; Mahler v. Holden, 
20 Ill. 363; Logan v. Marquess, 
53 Ind. 16; Rice v. Underwood, 
27 Mo. 551. 
