LIENS EXISTING BY THE COMMON LAW, IN. THE ABSENCE OP ANY SPECIAL AGREEMENT.
Every bailee for hiry who has, by his labor or skill, conferred value on specific chattels bailed to him for that purpose has a particu lar lien upon them ; 6 Term 14; Hensel v.
Noble, 95 Pa. 345, 40 Am. Rep. 659; Miller v. Pickens, 26 Miss. 182 ; Moore v. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 292 ; White v. Smith, 44 N. J. L. 105, 43 Am. Rep. 347; so also have wh,arfingers; 7 B. & C. 212; Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 554, 3 Am. Rep. 731 ; ware housemen; Low v. Martin, 18 Ill. 286; Scott v. Jester, 13 Ark. 437; 34 E. L. & Eq. 116; who are entitled to a lien on goods remain ing in the warehouse for a general balance of storage due on all goods stored under a sin gle contract; Devereux v. Fleming, 53 Fed. 401; dyers and tailors; Cro. Car. 271; 4 Burr. 2214; but a tailor making cloth into clothing as a sub-contractor, under a contract with one who received the cloth from the owner, has no lien on the clothing for his services; v. Bratespiece, 174 Pa. 119, 34 Att. 551; the finder of lost property for which a reward is offered; Wilson v. Guyton, 8 Gill (Md.) 213; Baker v. Hoag, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 113; Cummings v. Gann, 52 Pa. 484; a ven dor of goods, for the price, so long as he re tains possession; 8 H. L. Cas. 338; Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hynes, 83 Wis. 388, 53 N. W. 684 ; Curtin v. Isaacsen, 36 W. Va. 391, 15 S. E. 171; Benj. Sales, § 796; pawnees, from the very nature of their contract ; Ferguson v. Furnace Co., 9 Wend: (N. Y.) 345; Vest v. Green, 3 Mo. Woodman v. Chesley, 39 Me. 45 ; but only where the pawner has authority to 'make such pledge; 2 Campb. 336, n. A pledge, even where the pawnee is innocent, does not bind the owner, unless the pawner has authority to make the pledge; 1 M. & S. 140 ; Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How. (U. S.) 343, 15 L. Ed. 934; Fisher v. Fisher, 98 Mass. 303; Bealle v. Bank, 57 Ga. 274; see, as to stock,' Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382, 97 Am. Dec. 107, 1 Am. Rep. 115; Thompson v. Toland, 48 Cal. 99. The paw does not have a general lien; Allen v. Megguire, 15 Mass. 490; Van Blarcom v. Bank, 37 N. Y. 540; and he does not lose his particular lien by a re-delivery for a spe cial and limited purpose ; Cooper v. Ray, 47 Ill. 53; 18 C. B. N. S. 315; Way v. David son, 12 Gray (Mass.) 465, 74 Am. Dec. 604. Other liens recognized with respect to the particular property which is the subject matter of the dealings between the parties are as follows: Common carriers, for transportation of goods ; 6 East 519; Schneider v. Evans, 25
Wis. 241, 3 Am. Rep. 56 ; Dufolt v. German, 1 Minn. 301 (Gil. 234), 66 Am. Dec. 543; Long v. R. Co., 51 Ala. 512 ; The' Davis, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 15, 19 L. Ed. 875; Richardson v. Rich, 104 Mass. 156, 6 Am. Rep. 210; but not if the goods are taken tortiously from the owner's possession, where the carrier is innocent ; Robinson v. Baker, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 137, 51 Am. Dec. 54; King v. Richards, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 418, 37 Am. Dec. 420; 1 B. & Ad. 450 ; nor if the carrier transport them for a mere hire; Gilson v. Gwinn, 107 Mass.
126, 9 Am. Rep. 13. Part of the goods may be detained for the whole freight of goods belonging to the same person; 6 East 622. A carrier has a lien on baggage for the fare of the passenger, which includes the trans portation of both ; Sto. Bailor. § 604; Hutch. Car. § 719; 2 Campb. 631; Roberts v. Koehl er, 30 Fed. 94, where it was held by Deady, J., that this lien extended so far as to war rant the detention of the baggage to enforce the payment of an additional for the last part of the journey, covered by the ticket, charged by the conductor after the passenger had stopped over without permis sion; but this decision is challenged by Pro fessor Ewell, in a note which collects and reviews cases considered as bearing upon the question ; 26 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 293. If property is damaged while in charge of a common carrier to a greater amount than the bill for freight, his lien is extinguished; Miami Powder Co. v. Ry. Co., 38 S. C. 78, 16 S. E. 339, 21 L. R. A. 123. The lien of a carrier and warehouseman for keeping prop erty is superior to that of a pledgee who has secured the property to be transported and stored; Cooley v. Ky. Co., 53 Minn. 327, 55 N. W. 141, 39 Am. St. Rep. 609. Where a company refuses to deliver freight to the proper owner or consignee, on the ground that it has a lien thereon for freight charges and storage, and the owner resorts to a suit to recover possession of the property, it can not claim judgment on the ground that it has a lien for storage, where it has been decided that it had no lien for freight charg es ; Sicard v. Ry. Co., 15 Blatchf. 525, Fed. Cas. No. 12,831.