HORSEBREAKEE, TRATNER, ETC. 219 



plates elsewhere. The right of lien, therefore, must be 

 subservient to this general right which overrules it ; so that 

 I doubt if that doctrine would apply where the animal 

 delivered was a racehorse, as that case differs much from 

 the ordinary case of training. I do not say that the case of 

 Bevan v. Waters (k) was wrongly decided ; I only doubt if 

 it extends to the case of a racehorse, unless perhaps he was 

 delivered to the groom to be trained for the purpose of 

 running a specified race, when of course these observations 

 would not apply " (/). 



It has, however, been decided in a later case, that the 

 labour and skill employed on a racehorse by a trainer are 

 a good foundation for a lien (m). But if by usage or 

 contract the owner may send the horse to run at any 

 race he chooses, and may select the jockey, the trainer 

 has no continuing right of possession and consequently 

 no lien (m). 



The owner of a stallion is entitled to a specific hen on Stallion - 

 the mare, in respect of his charge for covering her. Thus ™^^^^ 'i'^ '* 

 in the following case S. sent a mare to M., a farmer, to 

 be covered by a stallion belonging to him, and the mare 

 was taken to M.'s stables and covered accordingly upon 

 a Sunday. However, the charge for covering not being 

 paid, M. detained the mare, and on a demand of her 

 being afterwards made, M. refused to deliver her, claiming 

 a lien not only for the charge on that occasion, but for a 

 general balance due to him on another account. It was 

 held that M. was entitled to a specific lien on the mare 

 for the charge of covering her, and that the claim made 

 by M. to retain the mare for the general balance was not 

 a waiver of his lien for the charge on the particular occa- 

 sion, and did not dispense with the necessity of a tender 

 of that sum (w). 



It was also decided that such a contract was not void For work 

 within 29 Car. 2, c. 7, s. 1, on the ground of its having g^^y '^ 

 been made and executed on a Sunday, but that even if it 

 were void the contract having been executed the lien 

 attached. And Mr. Baron Parke said, " We are of 

 opinion that this is not a case within the statute 29 Car. 

 2, c. 7, which only had in its contemplation the case of 



(k) Bevan \. Waters, 3 C. & P. 680; 18 L. J.,Q. B. 266; see also 



520. Lee v. Irwin, 4 Ir. Jur. 372. 



{I) Jaelison v. Giimmins, 5 M. & {n) Searfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & W. 



W. 360. 270. 



(»«) Forth T. Simpson, 13 Q. B. 



