LIEN OP LIVERY-STABLE KEEPERS. 451 



be detained for the keep of all."^^ Where the statutory lien 

 is on the animal only, a claim of a lien on a "horse and car- 

 riage" is not enforceable against a mortgagee, where there is 

 no way of distinguishing what sum was claimed for the car- 

 riage and what for the horse. ^^* 



The lien is lost by a voluntary surrender of the animal to 

 the owner or his representative.^^^ Where the stable-keeper 

 sells his stable and lets the owner take the horse, he loses 

 his lien unless he arranges that the horse is to be held for 

 his benefit. ^^^ His lien is waived by surrendering possession 

 to a mortgagee without claim on his part and cannot be 

 revived by subsequent payment by and assignment of the 

 lien to the mortgagee, it not appearing that the assignment 

 was executed pursuant to any agreement made when the 

 horses were taken away.^^'' Where A., a livery-stable keeper, 

 received a horse from a trainer and took an assignment of his 

 account against the owner, and the latter in A.'s absence 

 took his horse away and put it in B.'s stable and repudiated 

 to A. the trainer's demand and A. said he would let it go until 

 the trainer came home and they would then "fix it up," and 

 then took the horse away from B.'s stable, in the latter's 

 absence, it was held in an action by B. against A. to recover 

 possession that the latter's lien, if any, for keep or on the 

 assigned account was waived when the adjustment was post- 

 poned till the return home of the trainer.^^^ 



As to one who has acquired a subsequent bona fide interest 



'" Young V. Kimball, 23 Pa. St. 193. 



"* Varney v. Jackson, 2 Mo. App. Repr. 1374. 



And see Robinson v. Kaplan, 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 686; Sides v. Cline, 

 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 481. 



"" Ferriss v. Schreiner, 43 Minn. 148; Seebaum v. Handy, 46 O. St. 560; 

 Vinal V. Spoflford, 139 Mass. 126; Cardinal v. Edwards, 5 Nev. 36; Gorman 

 V. Williams, 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 776. 



It is lost, also, by voluntarily accepting the note of a third person for 

 the amount due: Gorman v. Williams, supra. 



™ Fitchett V. Canary, 59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 383. 



"' Shellhammer v. Jones, 87 la. 520. '" Bray v. Wise, 82 la. 581. 



