LIEN OP AGISTORS AND TRAINERS. 441 



one with the knowledge of another's title as bailee undertook 

 to take care of the horse, he was held to have no lien for 

 the care and keeping, if the bailee had no authority to con- 

 tract therefor.i*^ 



An agistor's lien was not allowed in favor of a servant who 

 drives his master's cattle to pasture in the morning and back 

 in the evening.^*'^ So, a statute giving a lien to a "herder" 

 of cattle and others "entrusted" with the care of sheep does 

 not give it to one merely hired to take care of sheep, the 

 possession and control of which remain in the owner. '*^ And 

 where stock is not entrusted to a ranchman to be fed, but 

 remains in the owner's custody, and the ranchman simply 

 sells the food and has no other custody than that which 

 arises from permission to use his yards for feeding purposes, 

 he has no lien.^*^ 



Where a mortgagee gave the mortgage to A. to foreclose 

 and A. put the horse in his own stable and the mortgagee 

 was paid by the surety, it was held that A. had no lien for 

 the keeping: he was only the agent to foreclose, and not 

 "procured, contracted with to feed and take care of the 

 horse." ^*® But where the plaintiff by direction of the sheriff 

 under an order from the mortgagee pastured the cattle, he 

 was held to have a lien under the statute.^*'' 



In Louisiana it was held that a factor or merchant has no 



'" Sherwood v. Neal, 41 Mo. App. 416. 



'" Bailey v. Davis, 19 Oreg. 217. And see Underwood v. Birdsell, 6 

 Mont. 142. 



'** Hooker z/. McAllister (Wash.), 40 Pac. Rep. 617, where it was also 

 held that an allegation that the defendant owned a certain number of 

 -sheep, giving their number and county, was not a sufficient description 

 •of the sheep in an action to foreclose a lien for services in taking charge 

 of them. 



See, also, as to the owner's control, Feltman v. Chinn (Ky.), 43 S. W. 

 Rep. 192. 



'" Tabor v. Salisbury, 3 Colo. App. 335. '" Hale v. Wigton, 20 Neb. 83. 



"' Vose V. Whitney, 7 Mont. 385. 



That a mortgagor is not an "owner'' with whom the agistor may "con- 

 tract," see Graham v. Winchell, 3 Ohio N. P. 106. 



