442 BAILMENT. 



privilege on mules, cattle and implements attached to a 

 plantation or on the proceeds of the sale thereof, for advances 

 made or supplies furnished to make a crop.^*^ 



Where A. sold swine to B. on credit and B. returned them, 

 claiming to rescind the contract and refusing to receive them 

 back, and A. recovered in an action for the price and B. 

 brought trover, it was held that A. by bringing his action 

 lost his lien as seller but that, by the return of the animals, 

 he was made bailee by compulsion and had a particular lien 

 upon them for his expense.^*" 



Replevin will lie against one obtaining possession of an 

 animal with notice of an agistment lien against it.^^" A pur- 

 chaser for value without notice of an agistor's lien takes sub- 

 ject thereto, where the agistor has not voluntarily relin- 

 quished possession. ^^^ 



The trainer of a horse, also, has a lien on the animal for his 

 skill and expenses,"^ though in the case of a race-horse it 

 has been held that this does not apply where by usage or 

 contract the owner may send the horse to run at any race he 

 chooses and may select the jockey. ^^^ The modern decisions, 

 however, are broader and admit in a more unqualified man- 

 ner the lien of the trainer of a race-horse. ^^* 



'" Howe ^'. Whited, 21 La. Ann. 495, ""■ Leavy v. Kinsella, 39 Conn. 50. 



"° Storey v. Patton, 61 Mo. App. 12. 



"' Weber v. Whetstone, 53 Neb. 371. 



''" Sevan v. Waters, 3 C. & P. 520; Towle v. Raymond, 58 N. H. 64;. 

 Scott V. Mercer, 98 la. 258; Farney v. Kerr (Tenn. Ch. App.), 48 S. W. 

 Rep. 103. 



Perhaps this includes a breaker: Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 485. 



As to a farrier's lien, see Nicolls v. Duncan, 11 U. C. Q. B. 332; Hoover 

 V. Epler, 52 Pa. St. 522. 



"" Forth V. Simpson, 13 Q. B. 680. 



And see Jacobs v. Latour, 2 M. & P. 201; Jackson v. Cummins, 5 M. & 

 W. 342, per Parke, B.; Reilly v. McIUmurray, 29 Ont. 167, where it was 

 held that even if he has a lien, he loses it by delivering the animal to a 

 sale stable, giving up complete possession, the animal remaining at the 

 cost and under the control of the owner. 



'" See Hartman v. Keown, 101 Pa. St. 338; Harris v. Woodruflf, 124. 

 Mass. 205. 



