VETERINARY SURGEON AND FARRIER. 217 



A horse standing at a farrier'' s to be shod is exempt from Horse stand- 

 distress on the ground of public utility {u) . ^"f f^J^" '^'"^ 



As a party has a right to go to a farrier's shop by the trainable. 

 tacit permission of the law (x), an action of trover does not Horse may be 

 lie against a, farrier for refusing to deliver a horse which he detained for 

 has shod, unless the money due for the shoeing has been ^is shoein'^^ 

 paid or tendered (y). "' 



Because the artificer to whom goods are delivered for the Such lien is 

 purpose of being worked into form, — the farrier by whose j*^^''"i'e<:l ^Y 

 skOI an animal is cured of a disease, — the horsebreaker by 

 whose skill a horse is rendered manageable, and the man 

 who covers a mare with a stallion, have liens on the 

 chattels in respect of their charges. And all such specific 

 liens, being consistent with the principles of natural equity, 

 are favoured by the law, which is construed liberally in such 

 cases (z). 



But the horse can only be kept for work done at that Extends only 

 particular time, for the lien does not extend to any previous c^r'^t'lmT''" 

 account ; and when this point was decided by the Court of 

 Queen's Bench, Lord Ellenborough said, " Growing liens 

 are always to be looked at with jealousy, as they are en- 

 croachments on the common law. If they are encouraged 

 in practice, the farrier will be claiming a lien upon a horse 

 sent to him to be shod. It is not for the convenience of the 

 public that these liens should be extended further than they 

 are already established by law" («). 



In the case of Scarf e v. Morgan (b) a difficulty arose out Liability to 

 of the circumstance that a living chattel might become detaj^ed"^'^^ 

 expensive to the detainer, and would raise the question as 

 to who was liable to feed it intermediately. But this 

 difficulty was answered by referring to the analogous case of 

 a distress kept in a pound covert, where he who distrains is 

 ompellable to take reasonable care of the chattel distrained, 

 whether living or inanimate ; and to the case of a lien upon 

 corn, which requires some labour and expense in the proper 

 custody of it (c). 



(«) Francis v. Wyatt, 3 Burr. 229 ; 8 E. R. 520. 



1502, and the authorities there cited. (i) Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. cfe W. 



{x) Lane v. Cotton, 1 Salk. 18. 280. 



(y) Bao. Abr. Trover (E.) 816. (e) See ante, p. 209 ; 12 & 13 Vict. 



(z) Scarfe t. Morgan, 4 M. & W. c. 92, and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 60, s. 1 ; 



280; Chase V. Westmore, 5 M. & S. also ante, p. 212; British Empire 



189 ; 17 R. R. 301. Shipping Co. v. Somes, 28 L. J., Q. B. 



(a) Mushforth v. Hadfeld, 1 East, 220— E.x. Ch. 



