CHAPTER XI. 



LIVERY-STABLE KEEPERS, AGISTERS, AND THE HIRING AND 

 BORROWING HORSES. 



Livery- stable Keeper. 



A Uvery-stahle keeper, who is not an innkeeper, has no 

 privilege himself, and none can be claimed under him ; he 

 must therefore rest on his own agreement («). But he is 

 not liable to the inconveniences to which innkeepers are 

 subject, such as taking out licenses, &c. ; and he is not 

 bound to have soldiers quartered upon him {b). 



But if a horse in his keeping be lost or stolen, he is 

 answerable for it (c). 



A person should satisfy himself of the credit and solvency 

 of the livery-stable keeper, to whom he proposes to entrust his 

 horse ; because horses and carriages standing at livery are 

 distrainable ioT rent (c). 



But the case of a horse sent to a livery-stable merely 

 to be cleaned and fed, is very different from one, where 

 he is sent to remain during the owner's pleasure, the 

 feeding and grooming being only incident to the principal 

 object {d). 



In the case of Parsons v. Giiigell (e), the following 

 distinction was taken by Chief Justice Wilde : " If the 

 goods are sent to the premises for the purpose of being 

 dealt with in the way of the party's trade, and are to re- 

 main upon the premises until that purpose is answered, 

 and no longer, the case falls within one class ; but if they 

 are sent for the purpose of remaining there merely at the 



Has no pri- 



Liable where 

 the horse 

 lost. 



Horse at 

 livery dis- 

 trainable. 



But not 



where he is 

 merely to be 

 cleaned and 

 fed. 



Distinction 

 taken in 

 Parsons v. 

 Gingell. 



(a) Telv. 66 ; Chapman v. Allen, 

 Cro. Car. 271 ; Torkey. Greenaugh, 

 2 Ld. Eaym. 687; S. 0. 1 Salk. 

 388 ; Gelly v. Clerk, Cro. Jac. 188. 

 In some of the States in America 

 statutes are in force giving the livery- 

 stable keeper a lien upon animals 

 for their keep. See Hanover on 

 Horses, 2nd ed. 205 ; Colquitt v. 

 Kirkman, 47 Ga. 555 (1873). 



(4) Farkhurst \ . Foster, 1 Salk. 



387 ; Barnard v. Boiv, 1 C. & P. 

 366. 



ic) Yorke v. Greenaugh, 2 Ld. 

 Raym. 866 ; Francis v. JFyatt, 3 

 Burr. 1498; 1 Bla. Kep. 485; Far- 

 sons V. Gingell, 4 C. B. 558; 16 

 L. J., C. P. 227. 



(d) See per Wilde, C.J., Farsons 

 V. Gingell, 4 C. B. 558. 



(e) Farsens v. Gingell, 4 C. B. 

 558. 



