property and the work to be done upon it. Thus, under the Colorado statute giving any person who shall bestow labor on any personal property a lien thereon, possession of the article is essential to the retention of the lien, as such act is merely declaratory of the common law; 25 and the Louisiana Code gives workmen and artisans liens for the price of their labor on movables which they have repaired or made, if the articles remain in their possession. 26 Under the Georgia statute a mechanic's lien for work done and materials furnished in manufacturing a particular article is good as against the parties to whom it was delivered and a purchaser from them with notice of the lien, but not against a purchaser without notice.27 To support a lien under the Oregon laborer's lien act, there must be possession. If the owner of a wheat crop on his own land employs a laborer to cut and stack it on the premises, there is no lien.28 And under the Montana herder's lien law, persons employed by an agent by the month to drive cattle have no lien, since their possession is merely that of the agent who employed them.29 It has been held that the purpose of the New Jersey act giving a lien on "fixed machinery" is to afford mechanics a lien on machinery of which they could not have such possession as would give them a lien by the common law; hence, where machinery is of such a character that the common-law lien may be had upon it, doubts should not be so resolved as to hold it also liable to the statutory lien.30

Assignability.

§ 763. In England and in some of the United States a mechanic's lien on chattels is held to be a personal right, and therefore not assignable. It follows that the lien is not attachable, and also that a wrongdoer cannot set up the lien which a bailee has for the

31

25 Wenz v. McBride, 36 Pac. 1105, 20 Colo. 195. 26 Gayarre v. Tunnard, 9 La. Ann. 254.

27 Rose v. Gray, 40 Ga. 156.

28 McDearmid v. Foster, 12 Pac. 813, 14 Or. 417. 29 Underwood v. Birdsell, 9 Pac. 922, 6 Mont. 142.

30 Griggs v. Stone, 18 Atl. 1094, 51 N. J. Law, 549.

32

31 Lovett v. Brown, 40 N. H. 511; Bradley v. Spofford, 23 N. H. 444; Rug

gles v. Walker, 34 Vt. 468; Leg v. Evans, 6 Mees. & W. 36.

32 Leg v. Evans, 6 Mees. & W. 36; Lovett v. Brown, 40 N. H. 511.

price of labor done on the goods of another, to defeat the action of the owner. 33 In other states, however, it has been held that the holder of a possessory lien can transfer the lien with the posses sion as other valuable rights may be assigned. A statute giving the lienor the right to sell the property at auction in order to enforce his lien renders the right so far impersonal that under it a sale not at auction, though insufficient to pass title, will transfer the lien to the purchaser.35 Under such a statute it has been held that a groom who is employed to take charge of a horse, and who has the horse shod, and pays therefor, the shoeing being necessary, is subrogated to the farrier's lien, since he does not pay the bill as a mere volunteer, but in pursuance to his duty to his employer, although at common law a livery stable keeper has no lien for money paid by him to a horse doctor at the request of the owner for doctoring the horse.37 A common-law lien on a ship to secure a maritime claim is assignable.38

What Chattels Subject to Lien.

36

§ 764. Artisans' possessory liens are not confined to manufactured articles. Any chattel of which manual possession can be taken may be the subject of such a lien. Such liens have been enforced on horses,39 hogs, ships, wagons and carriages, 2 cloth,**

40

83 Bradley v. Spofford, 23 N. H. 444.

34 De Witt v. Prescott, 16 N. W. 656, 51 Mich. 298; Nash v. Mosher, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 431. And in case of a lien in favor of two persons jointly, one of them may assign his interest to the other. Busfield v. Wheeler, 14 Allen (Mass.) 139.

35 Rodgers v. Grothe, 58 Pa. St. 414.

36 Hoover v. Epler, 52 Pa. St. 522.

37 Orchard v. Rackstraw, 9 Man., G. & S. 698.

38 Park v. Hull of the Edgar Baxter, 37 Fed. 219.

39 Lord v. Jones, 24 Me. 439; Danforth v. Pratt, 42 Me. 50; Harris v. Woodruff, 124 Mass. 205; Towle v. Raymond, 58 N. H. 64; Shields v. Dodge, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 356; Forth v. Simpson, 13 Q. B. 680; Bevan v. Waters, 3 Car. & P. 520, Moody & M. 235; Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 Mees. & W. 270.

40 Shaw v. Ferguson, 78 Ind. 547.

41 Ex parte Bland, 2 Rose, 91; The Scio, L. R. 1 Adm. & Ecc. 355; British

42 See note 42 on following page.

43 See note 43 on following page.

44

47

grain, flour, 45 starch, mineral ore, lumber, 48 and engines."" § 765. It seems that an accountant has a lien on account books upon which he has done work; 50 and under a statute declaring that, when any person shall intrust to any mechanic, artisan, or tradesman materials to construct, alter, or repair any article of value, or any article of value to be altered or repaired, the mechanic, artisan, or tradesman shall have a lien on such articles, a civil engineer, who makes field notes, maps, charts, and drawings for a corporation, while employed by it, on books and papers furnished by it for that purpose, is entitled to a lien thereon, and the possession thereof until paid for his services.51 on which no work was done. type plates or types for his Empire Shipping Co. v. Somes, 96 E. C. L. 353; Somes v. Shipping Co., 8 H. L. Cas. 338; Williams v. Allsup, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 417; Franklin v. Hosier, 4 Barn. & Ald. 341; Woods v. Russell, 5 Barn. & Ald. 942; The Kalorama, 10 Wall. 204; The Marion, Fed. Cas. No. 9,087, 1 Story, 68; Town of Pelham v. The B. F. Woolsey, 3 Fed. 461; The B. F. Woolsey 7 Fed. 110; The Two Marys, 10 Fed. 919; Scott v. Delahunt, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 372; 65 N. Y. 128; Rees v. The General Terry, 13 N. W. 533, 3 Dak. 163. A lien of this kind on a ship is, however, of comparatively rare occurrence, liens on ships usually arising out of the provisions of maritime law or of statutes. See post, c. 21.

But there can be no lien on chattels Thus a printer has no lien upon stereocharges for printing therefrom,52 and

42 Hartley v. Hitchcock, 1 Starkie, 408; Clarke v. Fell, 2 Law J. (K. B.) 84; Lake v. Biggar, 11 U. C. C. P. 170; Milburn v. Milburn, 4 U. C. Q. B. 179; White v. Smith, 44 N. J. Law, 105; Hammond v. Danielson, 126 Mass. 294; Nash v. Mosher, 19 Wend. 431; Loss v. Fry, 1 City Ct. R. (N. Y.) 7; Small v. Robinson, 69 Me. 425.

43 Weldon v. Gould, 3 Esp. 268; White v. Gainer, 2 Bing, 23.

44 White v. Hoyt, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 232; Hogue v. Sheriff of Lewis Co., 1 Wash. T. 172.

45 Ex parte Ockenden, 1 Atk. 235; Chase v. Westmore, 5 Maule & S. 180.

46 Ruggles v. Walker, 34 Vt. 468.

47 Granby Mining & Smelting Co. v. Turley, 61 Mo. 375.

48 Palmer v. Tucker, 45 Me. 316; Haughton v. Busch, 59 N. W. 621, 101 Mich. 267; Farrington v. Meek, 30 Mo. 578; Pierce v. Sweet, 33 Pa. St. 151; Arians v. Brickley, 26 N. W. 188, 65 Wis. 26.

49 Denison v. Shuler, 11 N. W. 402, 47 Mich. 598; Watts v. Sweeney, 26 N. E. 680, 127 Ind. 116.

50 Ex parte Southall, 12 Jur. 576.

51 Amazon Irrigating Co. v. Briesen (Kan. App.) 41 Pac. 1116.

52 Bleaden v. Hancock, 4 Car. & P. 152; De Vinne v. Rianhard, 9 Daly (N. Y.) 406.

a broker employed to sell land has no lien for his commission on the title papers delivered to him.53 It has also been held that a man employed to string telegraph wires cannot obtain a common-law lien thereon by turning the ends of the wires to the ground, and refusing to allow connections to be made with them.54

For What Services Given.

§ 766. The services for which a mechanic may obtain a lien upon a chattel bailed to him are as various as the articles upon which the lien may be given. The general rule is that any work done directly on the chattel so as to increase its value will give a lien.55 Thus a lien is given for manufacturing an article out of raw materials furnished to the maker, as making boards out of logs; 57

56

53 Arthur v. Sylyester, 105 Pa. St. 233.

54 Bankers' & Merchants' Tel. Co. v. Bankers' & Merchants' Tel. Co., 27 Fed. 536.

55 Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 491; Chase v. Westmore, 5 Maule & S. 180. 56 Townsend v. Newell, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 332; Moore v. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 292; Ruggles v. Walker, 34 Vt. 468; Gurney v. James, 19 U. C. Q. B. 156. The builder of a vessel may have a possessory common-law lien thereon. Woods v. Russell, 5 Barn. & Ald. 942; Rees v. The General Terry, 13 N. W. 533, 3 Dak. 163.

57 Palmer v. Tucker, 45 Me. 316; Mount v. Williams, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 77; Pierce v. Sweet, 33 Pa. St. 151; Arians v. Brickley, 26 N. W. 188, 65 Wis. 26. One who cut and rafted logs under a contract, by the terms of which he is entitled to retain possession until paid for his services, has a common-law lien thereon. Haughton v. Busch, 59 N. W. 621, 101 Mich. 267. It has been held in Arkansas that the superintendent of a sawmill, who filed the saws and occasionally did other work at the mill, a watchman, who watched the mill at night, cleaned the machinery, and raised the steam in the morning, and laborers, who removed sawdust and splints from the mill, are not entitled to a lien on certain shingles made at the mill, under Mansf. Dig. Ark. § 4425, providing that "laborers, if unpaid, shall have an absolute lien on the product of their labor for such work and labor"; but the labor of sawyers who ran the saws, of the engineer who ran the engine, of persons who piled blocks into position to be made into shingles, of one who ran a machine for trimming the shingles, and of another for splitting the bolts to be made into shingles, all contributed to the completed article, and they are entitled to a lien. Van Etten v. Cook, 16 S. W. 477, 54 Ark. 522.

60

64

also for repairing chattels,58 for slaughtering hogs," for packing goods, and for printing cloth.61 One who harvests and threshes grain may claim a lien thereon, under a statute giving a lien to any one who bestows labor on any article of personal property at the owner's request; 62 and there is a common-law lien for converting wheat into flour, and barley into malt. Generally, a laborer employed to dig ore has no lien upon the ore dug by him for his wages,** but he may have such a lien if he has actual exclusive possession of the ore. A lien exists for shoeing a horse, or for doctoring it,"s or for training it for a race."9 And a farmer to whom a mare is delivered to be covered by his stallion has a lien on the mare therefor.70 A statute giving a lien to every person laboring on or assisting in manufacturing timber into shingles, while the same re

66

67

58 Gregory v. Stryker, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 628; Scott v. Delahunt, 65 N. Y. 128, 5 Lans. 372; The Marion, Fed. Cas. No. 9,087, 1 Story, 68; The Two Marys, 16 Fed. 697; Ex parte Bland, 2 Rose, 91; Franklin v. Hosfer, 4 Barn. & Ald. 341; Somes v. Shipping Co., 8 H. L. Cas. 338; Belleau v. Pitou, 13 Quebec Law R. 337.

Where a chattel has been left with a mechanic to be repaired, and he sends it away, and has the repairs made out of the country, he has a lien on the chattel when it comes back to him, the same as though he had repaired it with his own hands. Webber v. Cogswell, 2 Russ. & C. 47, affirmed in 2 Can. Sup. Ct. 15. 59 Shaw v. Ferguson, 78 Ind. 547.

GO Hayward v. Railway Co., 32 U. C. Q. B. 392.

61 Weldon v. Gould, 3 Esp. 268.

62 Hogue v. Sheriff of Lewis Co., 1 Wash. T. 172.

63 Ex parte Ockenden, 1 Atk. 235; Chase v. Westmore, 5 Maule & S. 180. 64 White v. Hoyt, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 232; Hazard v. Manning, 8 Hun (N. Y.) 613. 65 Ritter v. Gates, 1 Am. Law Reg. 119.

66 Granby Mining & Smelting Co. v. Turley, 61 Mo. 375.

67 Hoover v. Epler, 52 Pa. St. 522. In Canada it is said to be doubtful whether a farrier has a lien on a horse for services. Nicolls v. Duncan, 11 U. C. Q. B. 332.

68 Lord v. Jones, 24 Me. 439; Danforth v. Pratt, 42 Me. 50. But a livery man has no lien for doctoring a horse where the horse is not left with him for that purpose, since his possession is not exclusive. Miller v. Marston, 35 Me. 153.

69 Harris v. Woodruff, 124 Mass. 205; Towle v. Raymond, 58 N. H. 64; Shields v. Dodge, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 356; Bevan v. Waters, 3 Car. & P. 520; Moody & M. 235; Forth v. Simpson, 13 Q. B. 680.

70 Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 Mees. & W. 270.