The carriers' common law lien did not include any right of gale; 6 East 21; Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend.. (N. Y.) 267, 32 Am. Dec. 541; but the right to the lien is recognized and a power of sale given by statute in most states. In some states this right of sale is given to other bailees, as innkeepers, fac tors, etc. For the statutes on this subject see 1 Stims. Am. Stat. L. §§ 4353-6.
Innkeepers may detain a horse for his keep ; though, perhaps, not if the person leaving him be not a guest; Taylor v. Down ey, 104 Mich. 532, 62 N. W. 716, 29 L. R. A. 92, 53 Am. St. Rep. 472; Fox v. McGregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41; but not sell him; Ba con, Abridg. Inns (D) ; except by custom of London and Exeter ; F. Moo. 876; but see su pra ; and cannot retake the horse or any other goods on which he has a lien, after giving them up; L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. 484. They may detain the goods of a traveller, but not of a boarder ; Alverd v. Davenport, 43 Vt. 30; Manning v. Hollenbeck, 27 Wis. 202; L. R. 7 Q. B. 711; Pollock v. Landis, 36 Ia. 651; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 52 Minn. 516, 55 N. W. 56, 21 L. R. A. 229, 38 Am. St. Rep. 568. See 1 Smith, L. Cas. 253, 259; Beale, Innkeep. The innkeeper's common law lien is now generally regulated by statutes, many of which also confer on boarding house keepers all the privileges of innkeep ers; Cross v. Wilkins, 43 N. H. 332; Nichols v. Halliday, 27 Wis. 406; Mills v. Shirley, 110 Mass. 158. For reference to these stat utes see 1 Stims. Am. Stat. L. § 4393. An innkeeper's lien is a particular lien ; 9 East 433; Cro. Car. 271; Langworthy v. R. Co., 2 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 195; it attaches to goods in the possession of his guest, though they belong to a stranger, provided the innkeeper has no notice of such fact ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 52 Minn. 516, 55 N. W. 56, 21 L. R. A. 229, 38 Am. St. Rep. 568 ; Cook v. Kane, 13 Or. 482, 11 Pac. 226, Rep. 28 ; but if he owes the guest for labor more than she does for board, he has no lien; Hanlin v. Walters, 3 Colo. App. 519, 34 PEW. 686. Where a husband and wife were guests at a hotel, although credit was given to the hus band who made payments on account, yet the wife's luggage which was her separate prop erty was subject to a lien for the balance of the hotel bill ; 25 Q. B. Div. 491. See a full note on the innkeeper's lien; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 52 Minn. 516, 55 N.• W. 56, 21
L. R. A. 229, 38 Am. St. Rep. 568. In holding that an innkeeper has a lien on goods which a traveller brings to the inn as luggage, thp English court of appeal said that it would not disturb a well-knowi•and very large busi ness carried on in England for centuries, by holding otherwise ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 501. Agistors of cattle and livery-stable keepers have no lien; Cro. Car. 271; Goodrich v. Willard, 7 Gray (Mass.) 183; Miller v. Mars ton, 35 Me. 153, 56 Am. Dec. 694 ; Lewis v. Tyler, 23 Cal. 364; Mauney v. Ingram, 78 N. C. 96; Wills v. Barrister, 36 Vt. 220; except by statute; Ingalls v. Green, 62 Vt. 436, 20 AU. 196.
Rut a liveryman, who is innkeeper, has a lien for his charges to the guest's horse; Lewis v. Tyler, 23 Cal.. 364.
An agistor's lien cannot be based upon a breach of the contract of agistment; Powers v. Botts, 58 Mo. App. 1; and when the owner of stock allows it to remain in the hands of the agistor longer than the contract time, the latter may claim a lien for their keeping during such term; id. One who boards a horse under contract with a person not the owner thereof has no right to a lien unless it Is shown that such person had authority to act for the owner ; Elliott v. Martin, 105 Mich. 506, 63 N. W. 525, 55 Am. St. Rep. 461. Persons who have been held entitled to a lien for keeping animals are : ranchmen ; Vase v. Whitney, 7 Mont. 385, 16 Pac. 846 ; stable keeper ; Lynde v. Parker, 155 Mass. 481, 30 N. E. 74; State v. Shevlin, 23 Mo. App. '598; but not a groom merely employed to take charge of the horse ; Skinner v. Caughey, 64 Minn. 375, 67 N. W. 203. Such lien accrues only to one in possessions Fishell v. Morris, 57 Conn. 547, 18 Atl. 717, 6 L. B.. A. 82 ; Seebaum v. Handy, 46 Ohio St. 560, 22 N. E. 869; Hooker v. McAllister, 12 Wash. 46, 40 Pac. 617 ; Ferriss v. Schreiner, 43 Minn. 148, 44 N. W. 1083 ; Wright v. Wad dell, 89 Ia. 350, 56 N. W. 650 ; Cox v. Mc Guire, 26 Ill. App. 315; contra, see Heaps v. Jones, 23 Mo. App. 617. One wrongfully con verting an animal to his own use has no lien ; Howard v. Burns, 44 Kan. 543, 24 Pac. 981; nor one receiving from a bailee with notice ; Sherwood v. Neal, 41 Mo. App. 416. A liveryman's lien, under the Pennsylvania act, 1807, for boarding a horse does not ex tend to a carriage and harness kept with it ; 14 Lanc. L. Rev. Pa. 255.