AGISTEE. 227 



ment, " It comes simply to the question, whether there is 

 an implied undertaking that the grass shall be fit for the 

 eatage of cattle ; if there is, caclii qiicestio ; if not, the 

 plaintiff has performed his engagement, and the defendant 

 has had all he bargained for, namely, a demise of the 

 eatage for six months, and must pay for all" (c). 



If a man take in horses, kine or other cattle to depasture. Agister has 

 on a contract at so much a head per week, he cannot detain '^° ™" 

 them for the value of the agistment, unless there is a special 

 agreement to that effect [d). And the law on this subject 

 was laid down and explained in the case of Jackson v. 

 Cummins (e), in which Mr. Baron Parke said, " I think 

 that by the common law no lien exists in the case of agist- 

 ment. The general rule as laid down by Best, O.J., in 

 Sevan v. Waters (/), and by this Court in Scarfe v. 

 Morgan (g), is, that by the general law, in the absence of 

 any special agreement, whenever a party has expended 

 labour and skill in the improvement of a chattel bailed to 

 him, he has a lien upon it. Now, the case of agistment 

 does not fall within that principle, inasmuch as the agister 

 does not confer any additional value on the article either by 

 the exertion of any skill of his own, or indirectly by means 

 of any instrument in his possession, as was the case with 

 the stallion in Scarfe v. Morgan {g) ; be simply takes in 

 the animal to feed it. In addition to which we have the 

 express authority of Chapman v. Allen (h), that an agister 

 has no lien ; and although possibly that case may have 

 been decided on the special ground that there had been an 

 agreement between the parties, or a conversion of the 

 animal had taken place, still it is also quite possible that it 

 might have proceeded on the more general principle that 

 no lien can exist in the case of agistment; and it was so 

 understood in this Court in Juclson v. Ethridge (i). The 

 analogy also of the case of the livery-stable keeper who has 

 no lien by law, furnishes an additional reason why none 

 can exist here ; for this is a case of an agistment of milch 

 cows, and from the very nature of the subject-matter, the 

 owner is to have possession of them during the time of 



(c) Sutton T. Temple, 12 M. & W. 620 ; M. & M. 236. 



60. iff) Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & ^Y. 



(d) Chapman v. Allen, Cro. Car. 283 ; 1 Horn & Hurl. 292. , ' . ; 

 273 ; Richards v. Symons, 8 Q,. B. (A) Chapman v. Allen, Cro. Car. 

 93. 278. 



(e) Jackaony. Cummins, SM.&W. («) Judsonv. Ethridge, 1 Cr. & M. 

 342. 743. 



(/) Bevan t. Waters, 3 C. & P. 



Q 2 



