Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/769

 — Part

—

Bailment for Valuable Consideration.

III.

547

general principle being that when the trade or business could not be carried on unless the chattels were privileged from distress, then they are exempt (j). Sub-Sect.

>

Miles V. Furher (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 77, per Archibald, J., at p. 83. Chattels ( j) of bailors have been held privileged from distress when held in the course of business by warehousemen and wharfingers {Miles v. Furher, supra ; Thompson v. Mashiter (1823), 1 Bing. 283) ; factors or agents for sale {Gilman v. Elton (1821), 3 Brod. & Bing. 75 Findonw, McLaren (1845), 6 Q. B. 891) auctioneers, if on their



Holmes (1853), 8 Exch. 861), otherwise not {Lyons v. Elliott (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 210) and tradesmen who have to do work on the goods {Simpson v. Hartopp (1744), Willes, 512, 1 Smith, L. C. (11th ed.), p. 437 Muspratt v. Gregory (1838), 3 M. & W. 677). Agisters and livery stable-keepers are probably on the same footing as warehousemen {Parsons v, Gingell (1847), 4 C. B. v.





545, deciding against the privilege, being disapproved in Miles v. Furber, supra). Live stock taken in to be agisted by a tenant are privileged from distress beyond the amount of the agreed price remaining due to the tenant (Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 45, and compare London and Yorkshire Bank v. Belton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 457, with Masters v. Green (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 807 see title Animals, p. 384, ante). {k) See also p. 561, post. {I) Jackson v. Cummins (1839), 5 M. & W. 342 Smith v. Dearlove (1848), 6 C B 132
 * (m) Sevan v. Waters (1828), 3 C. & P. 520 Scarfe v. Morgan (1838), 4 M. & W.





270.

Simpson (1849), 13 Q. B. 680. Jones V. Peppercorne (1858), 1 John. 430, approved in Be London and Globe Finance Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch. 416. See also Eushforth v. Hadfield Bock v. Gorrissen (1860), 2 De G. F. & J. 434, per Lord (1806), 7 East, 224 •

{n) Forth v.

(o)



Campbell, L.C,

at p. 443.

(p) R. V. Humphery (1825), McL. There are (1836), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 99.

&

Y. 173; but see Leuckhart v. Cooper statutory definitions of the expressions warehouseman, wharfinger, warehouse, and wharf, which will be found under titles

Revenue



Sale of Goods



Shipping and Navigation.

Holderness v. Collinson (1827), 7 B. & C. 212. See also title and, for proof of usages, see title Evidence. {r) E. V. Humphery, supra. (s) Moet V. Pickering (1878), 8 Ch. D. 372, per Cotton, L.J., at {q)

{t)

Bock

V.

Gorrissen, supra.

Stock Exchange. {u) Kinnear v. Midland

See

Bail. Co.

i.

Lien of the Bailee.

4.

1113. As a general rule, a custodian for reward has, in the absence of some special agreement, no lien {k) for his charges upon the chattel intrusted to him for safe custody alone (Z), though he acquires a lien if he agrees, in addition, to expend labour and skill upon it(m), unless the terms of the contract exclude such ien(n). But by implication of law w^harfingers (o), and possibly warehousemen (p), have a general lien {k) for their charges upon the chattels of their bailors, but in the case of wharfingers, in any particular district this implication may be rebutted by local usage (q). This general lien takes precedence of claims by the Crown (r), and the costs of defending it may be added to the security (s). In the case of factors, bankers and stockbrokers, in the absence of a special contract (^), which is always construed strictly against the claimant (it) a general lien is presumed; consequently such bailees may retain chattels or securities deposited with them, not

own premises {Williams

^^gt.

Hire of Custody.

titles

Agency



Sale of Goods,

p.

376.

Bankers and Banking

(1868), 19 L. T. 387.

N N

2



Lien,

General

lien,