1 East, 4, The following persons have been adjudged entitled to the general lien :-attornies, bankers, brokers, calicoSweet v. Pym. printers, factors, fullers (according to the custom of the trade at Exeter), packers, wharfingers (m), common carriers, innkeepers, millers. With regard to printers, it seems to be undecided whether they are or not entitled. The right of dyers is not merely unsettled for want of decisions, but it has, moreover, been determined different ways upon different trials. See 3 Maule & See the cases in Montagu, p. 29, note n. and 2 Chitty, Cases Temp. Mansfield, 456, Bennett v. Johnson, where the decision was against the claim. accounts. 3 Espinasse, 268, Weldon v. Gould. 5 Taunton, 56, Olive v. Smith. 1 Atkins, 228, ex parte Deeze. 3 Bosanquet & Puller, 496. It seems that, in general, the lien should be claimed for work done in the course of the particular business, and not for money lent, or for any collateral matter, and it has been so decided in the case of calico-printers. And in another case, Mr. Justice Gibbs declared his opinion, that policy brokers were entitled to their lien on the policy account, but not for advances they had made on goods. But packers have this general lien for money lent. As to the lien of a factor for debts accrued before his character of factor commenced, Lord Alvanley, after saying that "if a debt be due from the principal to the factor, antecedent to the time of the particular goods 66 66 being put into the hands of the latter, he is entitled to. "retain them as a security;" added, "and if a man "commence dealing with a factor, to whom he is in"debted on bond, I am not prepared to say, that the (m) And although true it is, that the wharfinger has a claim of general lien for wharfage, yet where he claimed for labourage in addition (that is, for weighing, landing, and delivery), and for warehouse rent, the Court held that the claim could not be supported in respect of the labourage, upon the principle that such lien arises out of a contract express or implied, of which there was no evidence, although the claim had been acquiesced in in a great majority of instances. 7 Barnewall & Cresswell, 212, Holderness v. Collinson. "lien of the factor would not attach upon such debt." But by Chambre, justice, "I do not find any authority "for saying, that a factor has any general lien in respect "of debts which arise prior to the time at which his "character of factor commences; and if a right to such Puller, 488. "a lien is not established by express authority, it does "not appear to me to fall within the general principle 66 3 Bosanquet & stone, Rep. 1117, Binstead, v. Buck. upon which the liens of factors have been allowed." There is no lien in favour of the finder of property; Sir Wm. Blackand so it was decided where such a claim was made for the keep of a dog. Some timber, placed in a dock on the banks of the Thames, was accidentally loosened, and floated down as far as Putney, where it was left at low water; thence it was taken by the bailiff of a manor, who claimed a certain compensation for his trouble, and upon a refusal to comply with the demand, detained the timber. Upon action brought, the defence of the bailiff was, that this act was a benefit and convenience to the owner; that on principles of public policy the lien ought to be supported, and that the case bore a strong resemblance to salvage. But the Court rejected the claim, and said, that public policy and commercial necessity not only did not require the rule of lien in the case before them, but that great inconvenience would fall. Chapman. upon owners of craft if it were established. We have seen, that notwithstanding special or general customs, a lien may be had if there be an agreement for that purpose. So that where a party of dyers, dressers, bleachers, whisters, printers and calenderers of Manchester met together, and gave public notice that they would not thenceforward take into their possession any goods to be bleached, &c. unless they should be subject by express condition not only to the debt for the work and labour performed upon them, but also for the general balance due from their employers, the Court considered it perfectly clear, that these manufacturers had instituted 2 H.Blackstone, 254, Nicholson 6 Term Rep. 14, Kirkman v. Shawcross. 5 Barnewall, & Alderson, 350, Snell. z Rose, 239, a valid agreement, which was not contra bonos mores, nor forbidden by any law. But where a carrier, who had given a public notice of this kind, sent goods to the order of J. S., a factor, the consignee, it was held, that he should not have any lien for his general balance due from J. S. against the real owner of the goods. Where a partner in a banking-house seceded, and another came in, a customer, asking for acceptances to the amount of 2,000 l., addressed the new firm thus : "As we have kept an account with you for many years, "and as the value of the estate of which you have the "title deeds, and 's acceptances, are together of "greater value than the amount of your acceptances "will be, together with the 2,000l. now asked for," &c.: here the bankers were considered to have a lien for advances beyond the 2,000 l. subsequent to the date of the letter. Though a mortgage to three bankers cannot, it seems, be extended to the firm upon the introduction of a fourth, although the new partner has only a fixed salary, and is not interested in profit and loss. Where there are continued dealings between the same parties, Montagu, p. 35. and it is understood that a lien for a general balance exists, subsequent dealings may be considered as governed by the same principle. So that if a trader borrow money of a person in possession of some property belonging to that trader, it seems to be evidence that the goods deposited are pledged for the whole debt. 2 Rose, 242, ex parte Browne, cited. Montagu on Lien, P. 35. Ibid. Power of the liens. It has been determined, that the right of the Crown is Crown to defeat not paramount, so as to deprive a factor of his lien; and judgment was given, therefore, in favour of one who had accepted bills of exchange on the faith of a consignment to his principal, and claimed to hold in respect of his advances against the sheriff seizing under an extent. 6 Price, 369, Rex v. Lee. In the former chapter on shipping, the subject of lien as it relates to ships has been much considered, and the reader may therefore be referred there for the cases which have occurred. There is a lien for salvage on the Lord Raymond,393,Hartstrictest principles of commercial policy, it being rea- fort v. Jones. sonable that a man shall be rewarded who encounters hazard for the service of another; but the lender of money at respondentia, whose bond was to be void if the ship returned, or in case of loss, if a proportionable average on the goods saved should be paid, was not held entitled to his lien, for this amounted only to a personal obligation on the borrowers; there was no specific Busk v. Fearon. pledge. 4 East, 319, lien. There could not, before the late statute concerning Assignment of factors, be any assignment of lien, and now such a claim for a general balance cannot be acquired by a pawnee, but only a compensation to the amount of the pledge or advances. the lien. It is a very natural enquiry, whether property thus Rights given by detained for payment of a just debt can be disposed of, or whether it is to remain a dead pledge in the holder's hands, and further, whether any use may be made of property thus acquired. Undoubtedly, as a general By Gibbs, C. J. "proposition, a right of lien gives no right to sell the Holt, p. 385. goods." But this proposition is qualified by an understanding, that if the keeping of such goods be creative of expense, the case is altered. So that by the custom of London, where a horse is likely to consume his value, the innkeeper may sell him, which he may not do as a Montagu, p. 21. general rule. Again, where a person deposited some 66 wine with the defendant, as a security for a loan, "the contract," said Gibbs, C. J., "may be said to amount "to this: If I [the borrower] repay the money, you "must redeliver the goods; but if I fail to repay it, thonier v. Dawson. you may use the security I have left to repay yourself;'" and the Court upheld the defendant's authority Holt, 383, Poto sell, the money not being repaid. With regard to the employment of cattle; a horse or ox may be employed, a cow may be milked, and in short the chattel Owen, 124. Liens for and against third persons. By Grose, J. 2 East, 235. 2 East, 227, Hammonds v. may A few considerations respecting liens in favour or against third persons, may be added to this part of the chapter; and as, in general, the representative has the same right of lien as his testator, or the party whom he represents, so commonly the executor or assignee, &c. is liable in the same way as the deceased or bankrupt. It was insisted, in one case, that whatever authority the testator gave on the subject of retaining goods was countermanded by his death, but (it was a case between the executors of a consignor and the assignees of a consignee) "it does not seem very consistent with justice to say, "that after the consignee had advanced the premiums, " and paid bill on the credit of the consignment, the "death of the consignor should operate as a revocation, "so as to prevent the bankrupt and his assignees having "the fruits of that which was the foundation and "consideration upon which he disbursed his money." There was, moreover, a confirmation of the consignee's lien by the executors in the case cited, and judgment was given for the parties claiming such lien (n). Again, where a broker advanced money, and gave acceptances on account of some sugars which were deposited in their hands by the plaintiff's agents, it was held, that the owner could not demand these sugars without giving a full indemnity, and that a mere notice by the plaintiffs to the brokers that they should not sell, or even an offer of counter acceptances, would not hinder the de (n) It would appear that there is no difference where the executor ratifies his testator's acts, and where not. Yet there is an old case in which it was held that a factor has no lien on goods entrusted to him against his principal's executor. 2 Vernon, 117, Chapman v. Derby. |