450 BAILMENT. 



owner's request, a veterinary surgeon to attend the horse 

 while standing at livery, he has no lien for the surgeon's 

 charges.^"* Nor can the lien be created by the force of 

 usage prevailing in a particular town. "To acquire the force 

 of law, such customs must have been estahlislied, and have 

 become general, so that a presumption of knowledge by the 

 parties can be said to arise." ^"^ Nor has such stable-keeper 

 a lien though he is also an innkeeper, unless the horses are 

 kept for a guest at the inn.^"^ It is otherwise where there 

 is a special contract, as where an animal is kept by agree- 

 ment for the repayment of money advanced on it or for its 

 keep : in such a case the stable-keeper has a lien.^"^ 



A lien is very frequently, however, given by statute;^"* 

 and this has been held to attach as the care and feed are being 

 bestowed and not merely from the time the board becomes 

 due.^*^^ And it attaches to a horse exempt from sale on 

 execution. ^^^ The statutory lien does not exist where the 

 animal is placed with the livery-stable keeper without the 

 owner's knowledge or authority.^^^ Where the stable-keeper 

 has by statute, as against the actual bailor, a lien on an animal 

 left with him for the whole account in the line of his business, 

 yet if the depositor is not the true owner or there is a prior 

 lien, the stable-keeper's lien is only good as against the true 

 owner or prior incumbrancer for the expense of feeding or 

 taking care of that particular animal.^^^ Ordinarily, how- 

 ever, the right of lien is joint and several and one animal may 



'"' Orchard v. Rackstraw, g C. B. 698. 



'°° Saint V. Smith, i Coldw. (Tenn.) $1. 



^" Wall V. Garrison, 11 Colo. 515. See § 109, infra. 



""' Donathy v. Crowther, 11 Moore 479; Richards v. Symons, 8 Q. B. 90. 



''" See Andrews v. Crandell, 16 La. Ann. 208, and the cases cited infra. 



™° Walls V. Long, 2 Ind. App. 202. 



''° Flint V. Luhrs (Minn.), 68 N. W. 514— the statute being held not to 

 be unconstitutional as to such exempt property. 



'" Lowe V. Woods, 100 Cal. 408; Stott v. Scott, 68 Tex. 302; Doranau 

 V. Green (Tex. App.), 19 S. W. Rep. 909. 



'^' Colquitt V. Kirkman, 47 Ga. 555. 



