Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/783

 — Part

III.

—



Bailment for Valuable Consideration.

with the work, there is a novation, and the assignee is entitled to sue the employer for the value of the work done by him {r).

561 s^^^t. 4.

Hire of

Work and Sub-Sect.

5.

Lien of Worhman.

Labour.

1137. Everyone to whom a chattel is delivered in order that he may, for reward, do work upon it, and who does work upon it, has by the common law a lien on the chattel for the amount of the remuneration due to him for the work done, and therefore is not bound to restore it until his remuneration is paid (s), unless such lien is excluded by express agreement or is otherwise inconsistent with the express or implied terms of the contract (^). But if a chattel is bailed to a workman for the sole purpose of his working with it, and not upon it, no lien attaches (?0This lien applies, apart from agreement, only to the sum actually due to the workman for materials and labour expended by him in

connection with the reparation or alteration of the chattel,

and does not extend to charges for warehousing {v). Nor will the fact that the owner of the chattel is aware that an additional charge will be made for each day during which his property detained in the valid exercise of the lien suffice to render him such charges. Thus the owner of a ship, who knew that he must pay for dock room while the vessel was being repaired, was held to have made no implied promise to pay any additional charge for the period during which his vessel was detained as security for the shipwright's charges, although he had received notice that such charges would be made (iv). Should the owner of the chattel bailed sell it, the workman's lien attaches only for the amount of the debt due to him at the time when he has notice of the sale, and not for any after-accruing debt(ic). When a bailee of goods expressly agrees with his bailor to keep the chattel bailed from injury, and this term in the agreement necessarily implies its repair by a third party, the third party who actually executes the repairs has an effective lien on the chattel against the owner, although there may have been no privity of contract between the owner and himself (2/).

is

liable for

v. London and North Western Rail. Co. (1853), 11 Hare, 325 ; OldAs to the rights of the assignor against the Loive (1829), 9 B. & C. 73. assignee, see Humphreys v. Jones (1850), 5 Exch. 952. Franklin v. Hosier (s) Lx loarte Ockenden Re Mattheivs (1754), 1 Atk. 235 Hollis v. Glaridge (1813), 4 Taunt. 807 ; Scarfe v. Morgan (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 341. (1838), 4 M. & W. 270 ; Blake v. Nicholson (1814), 3 M. & S. 167 ; Ghase v. Westmore (1816), 5 M. & S. 180; Story on Bailments, s. 440. See also, for equitable liens, title Lien. (t) Raitt V, Mitchell (1815), 4 Camp. 146 ; Ghase v. Westmore, supra, per Lord Ellenborough, C.J., at p. 186 ; Scarfe v. Morgan, supra, per Parke, B., at p. 283 ; Forth v. Simpson (1849), 13 Q. B. 680 ; and contvsi&t Ex parte Willoughhy, Re Westlake (1881), 16 Ch. D. 604. {u) Steadman v. Hockley (1846), 15 M. & W. 553, per Pollock, C.B., at p. 556 Bleaden v. Hancock (1829), 4 C. & P. 152. {v) Somes v. British Empire Shipping Go. (1860), 8 H, L. Cas. 338 ; Bruce v. Everson (1883), 1 Cab. & El. 18 Hartley v. Hitchcock (1816), 1 Stark. 408. {w) Somes v. British Empire Shipping Co., supra. (x) Barry v. Longmore (1840), 4 P. & D. 344. (y) Keene v, Thomas, [1905] 1 K. B. 136 ; Singer Manufacturing Go. v. London and South Western Rail. Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 833. (r)

Aspinall

field V.





H.L.

—

I.

O O

Lien,