Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/770

.

Bailment.

548 Sect.

only as security for the particular loan in respect of which they were so deposited, but also for a general balance of account (v) A similar rule to the above also prevails, as part of the law merchant, in certain other trades, although in all such cases, the custom

1.

Hire of Custody,

.

the

establishing Particular lien. /

I i

Expense

of

keeping.

Eaiiway company.

existence

lien.

a

general

lien

must

be

strictly

,

especially if the bailee particularises his demand, and claims to hold the chattel for the correct sum to which he is entitled as well as for the excessive one (b). bailee who keeps a chattel to enforce his lien on it cannot

A

charge for keeping it (c) A railway company has a lien on all chattels deposited with it This for safe custody (d) for the amount of its reasonable charges. lien applies not only against the person who actually deposited the chattel, but also against the true owner of the chattel, or a third party, even although they may not have had any privity with the original contracting parties

Loss of

of

proved {ic). In the absence of a particular trade custom (x), a specific lien on a particular chattel cannot be enlarged so as to include a general balance of account (y). (And if in such a case after demand by the bailor for the particular chattel, coupled with tender of the specific amount due thereon, the bailee refuse to re-deliver, not only is his lien gone (z) but he is also liable to the true owner in an action of The mere demand by the bailee of a sum in excess of trover (a)] that which is really due to him does not usually dispense with the necessity of a tender by the bailor of the amount actually due,

The lien

(e).

irretrievably gone

possession of the chattel be amounting to a waiver (g), intermixture or confusion with otber chattels of a like nature belonging to a different owner (h). And the assertion by the bailee of a right to retain the chattel 1114,

is

if

lost to the bailee (/), or if he do anything or if the identity of the chattel be lost by

Jones v. {v) Re London and Globe Finance Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch. 416 Peppercorne (1858), 1 John. 430. {w) Be Spotten cfc Co., Ex parte The Provincial Bank (1877), Ir. R. 11 Eq. For cases where bankruptcy avoids a general lien by contract, see 412. Ex parte Great Western Rail. Co., Re Bushell (1882), 22 Ch. D. 470 ; Wiltshire Iron Co. V. Great Western Rail. Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 776 ; and see generally

title

Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

(x)

Bock v. Gorrissen ch Co. Ex parte Tke. Provincial Bank, supra G. F. & J. 434 Leuckhart v. Cooper (1836), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 99. Jones v. Tarleton (1842), 9 M. & W. 675. Dirks v. Richards (1842), 4 Man. & G. 574 ; but see Scarfe v. Morgan (1838),

Re Spotten

(1860), 2 (y) (z)

4 M.

De

& W.



,



270.

The Norway (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 245. (h) Scarfe v. Morgan, supra, a very instructive case on liens. (c) Somes v. British Empire Shipping Co. (1860), 8 H. L. Cas. 338. {d) See p. 549, post. e) Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Tjondon and South Western Rail.Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 833, per Collins, J., at p. 837. Compare Dicas v. Stockley (1836), 7 f) Button V. Bragg (1816), 7 Taunt. 14. ( (a)

C. -

&

'

P. 587.

the goods (g) Mulliner v. Florence (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 484, where the bailee sold and thereby lost his lien. {h) Grant v. Humphery (1862), 3 F. & F. 162.