REQUISITES. There must have been a de livery of the property into the possession of the party claiming the lien, or • his agent ; 3 Term 119 ; 6 East 25, n.
Where a person, in pursuance of the au thority and directions of the owner of prop erty, delivers it to a tradesman for the exe cution of the purposes of his trade upon it, the tradesman will not have a general lien against the owner for a balance ,due from the person delivering it, if he knew that the one delivering was not the real own er ; 2 Campb. 218. Thus, a carrier, who, by the usage of trade, is to be paid by the con signor, has no lien for a general balance against the consignee; 5 B. & P. 64. Nor can a claim against the consignee destroy the consignor's right of stoppage in transitu; 3 B. & P. 42. But a particular lien may undoubtedly be derived through the acts of agents acting within the scope of their em ployment; 3 B. & P. 119. And the same would be true of a general lien against the owner for a balance due from him.
No lien exists where the party claiming it acquires possession by 'a wrong ; 2 Term 485; or by misrepresentation; 1 Campb. 12; or by his unauthorized and voluntary act; 2 H. Bla. 254; 3 W. Bla. 1117 (but see 4 Burr. 2218).
Or where the act of the servant or agent delivering the property is 'totally unauthor ized, and the pledge of it is tortious against the owner, whether delivered as a pledge or for the execution of the purposes of a trade thereupon ; 5 Ves. 111.
A delivery by a debtor for the purpose of preferring a creditor will not be allowed to operate• as a delivery sufficient for a lien to attach; 4 Burr. 2239 ; 3 Ves. 85; 2 Campb. 579.
A mere creditor happening to have in his possession specific articles belonging to his debtor, has no Hen upon them; Allen v. Megguire, 15 Mass. 490; nor is a lien cre ated by advancing money to enable a pur chaser of land to complete his purchase; McKay v. Green, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.)' 56; Collinson v. Owens, 6 G. & J. (Md.) 4; nor by an advancement of money to an adminis trator to pay debts of the intestate; Lieby v. Ludlow's Heirs, 4 Ohio, 469; the owner of land has no lien on property cast upon it by drift; Forster v. Bridge Co., 16 Pa. 393, 55
Am. Dec. 506. A lien cannot be created upon a mere right of action for a personal tort; Hammons v. Ry. Co., 53 Minn. 249, 54 N. W, 1108. No lien upon a particular fund is acquired by a creditor by reason of a prom ise to pay, a debt out of it ; Rogers v. Ho sack's Ex'rs, 18, Wend. (N. Y.) 319; nor upon land by the promise to pay out of the proceeds of its sale; Hamilton v. Downer, 46 Ill. App. 541. Nor can parties contract to extend the area of property to be covered by a lien; Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Witherow, 149 U. S. 574, 13 Sup. Ct. 936, 37 L. Ed. 853. A mere loan or advancement of money to pay the debt of another creates no lien; Kline v. Ragland, 47 Ark. 111, 14 S. W. 474; Wood v. Wood, 124 Ind. 545, 24 N. E. 751, 9 L. R. A. 173. See 9 L. R. A. 173, note; Sum:GA TION. At common law a corporation has no lien upon the stock of one of its members for an indebtedness due to it by him; Clise Inv. Co. v. Bank, 18 Wash. 8, 50 Pac. 575; Budd v. Ry. Co., 15 Or. 413, 15 Pac. 659, 3 Am. St. Rep. 169 ; but see Petersburg Say. & Ins. Co. v. Lumsden, 75 Va. 327; Bohmer & Oster loh v. Bank, 77 Va. 445; in which cases such lien seems to have been enforced under gen eral statutes. By-laws creating such lien are common and are valid; Young v. 23 N. J. Eq. 325; Bank of Holly Springs v. Pinson, 58 Miss. 421, 38 Am. Rep. 330; Farm ers' & Merchants' Bank of Linville v. Wasson, 48 Ia. 339, 30 Am. Rep. 398; Lock wood v. Bank, 9 R. T. 308; not, however, against innocent purchasers; Bullard v. Bank, 18 Wall. (U. S.)- 589, 21 L. Ed. 923; Driscoll v. Mfg. Co., 59 N. Y. 96; Merchants' Bank ,of Easton v. Shouse, 102 Pa. 488; An glo-Californian Bank V. Bank, 63 Cal. 359; Carroll v. Bank, 8 Mo. App. 249; Pitot v. Johnson, 33 La. Ann. 1286. A statutory lien of a corporation on its, stock Poi* debts due by a stockholder is good against all, the world. A sale of the stock to an innocent third party does not discharge it ; Dorr v. Clearing Co., 71 Minn. 38, 73 N. W. 635, 70 Am. St. Rep. 309; George H. Hammond & Co. v. Hastings, 134 U. S. 401, 10 Sup. Ct. 727, 33 L. Ed. 960. Such is declared to be "the weight of au thority"; 1 Thomp. Corp. § 1032.