main at the mill, or in the control of the manufacturer, allows a lien on shingles made from shingle bolts on which the work for which the lien is claimed was performed, while the shingles are under the control of the manufacturer."1

Work That does not Create Lien.

§ 767. Work that does not add to the value of the article cannot create a mechanic's lien on it. Thus there can be no such lien for merely taking care of horses, 72 or sheep,73 or for the cost of keeping a chattel."4 So, too, one who finds lost property, and returns it to the owner, has no lien thereon for his trouble and expense in the matter.75 And it has been held that a conveyancer has no lien on deeds delivered to him, "with and in respect of" which he does certain business for the owner, where the work does not appear to have been expended on the deeds themselves. Where type owned by a manufacturing corporation, publishing semiannually a register of merchants' financial standing, remained in the printer's possession undistributed, alterations being made as changes required for the next edition, it was held that he could only acquire a lien thereon by special contract, the type's value not being enhanced by the work done.""

76

71 Campbell v. Manufacturing Co., 39 Pac. 451, 11 Wash. 204.

72 Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 491. In many states, however, a lien on horses and cattle for keeping them has been created by statute.

73 Cummings v. Harris, 3 Vt. 244.

74 Somes v. Shipping Co., 8 H. L. Cas. 337; Bruce v. Everson, 1 Cababe & E. 18.

75 Nicholson v. Chapman, 2 H. Bl. 254.

76 Steadman v. Hockley, 15 Mees. & W. 552.

77 De Vinne v. Rianhard, 9 Daly (N. Y.) 406. But in another case in the same state, where printers had paper delivered to them for printing a book, and by the time they had used part of it the contract was broken by the fault of the other party, it was held that the printers had a lien on all the paper, not only for the printing actually done, but also for any labor performed in preparing type, cuts, electroplates, etc., for printing the book. Conrow v. Little, 22 N. E. 346, 115 N. Y. 387.

MECH.LIENS-51

(801)

Who can Acquire Lien.

§ 768. A mechanic's lien on chattels can be acquired only by a bailee lawfully in possession. Servants and employés of the owner have no lien, because their possession is that of their master.78 For the same reason there is no such lien in favor of a journeyman or day laborer.79 A person employed to cut wood under the superintendence of the owner's agent has no lien because he has no possession.80 So, too, in cutting and removing timber from the land of another, at an agreed price, and for the purpose of being sawed into boards, no lien, without a special contract therefor, can be acquired.81 And the lien of a bailee does not, as against the bailor, extend to employés of the former for their labor.82 One who buys a chattel in good faith from one whom he believes to be the owner, and who makes repairs on it while in his possession, and before he learns of the true ownership, acquires thereby no lien as against the true owner. $3 In Maine, a person who labors in manufacturing slate at a place other than "in the quarry" has no statute lien thereon.84

Lien on One Chattel for Work Done on Another.

§ 769. An artisan's lien is only a specific lien on the identical property upon which the labor and materials are bestowed. Thus one tendered payment for repairs upon a carriage cannot hold the carriage for repairs unpaid for upon other carriages of the same owner, the whole not being as of an entire lot; 85 and a workman has no right to detain cloth for a debt due for dressing or dyeing other cloth for the same party.s But where there is an entire

78 Wenz v. McBride, 36 Pac. 1105, 20 Colo. 195.

79 McIntyre v. Carver, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 392.

80 Callum v. Ferrier, 1 Wils. & S. 399.

81 Oakes v. Moore, 24 Me. 214.

82 Wright v. Terry, 2 South. 6, 23 Fla. 170; Landry v. Blanchard, 16 La. Ann. 173.

83 Clark v. Hale, 34 Conn. 398.

84 Union Slate Co. v. Tilton, 73 Me. 207.

85 Moulton v. Greene, 10 R. I. 330.

86 Rose V.

Hart, 8 Taunt. 499; Close v. Waterhouse, 6 East, 523, note.

87

contract for making or repairing several articles for a gross sum the tradesman has a lien on any of them in his possession for the whole amount due, even though the articles were delivered to him in different parcels, and at different times.88 Thus a printer employed to print certain numbers, not consecutive, of an entire work, has a lien upon the copies not delivered for his balance due for printing all the numbers, since it is all one entire work.89 And work done on a lot of lumber, part of which has been returned to the owner, justifies the detention of the residue of the lumber for the entire debt." A claim of lien on a horse for doctoring it gives no right to detain the harness and sleigh delivered with the horse."1

Lien for General Balance.

§ 770. It follows from the rule laid down in the preceding paragraph that an artisan has usually no lien on chattels in his possession to secure a general balance due him from the owner of the chattels.92 But by the general custom of the trade an artisan may have a lien for his general balance.93 Thus, in 1797, calico printers were held by Lord Kenyon to have liens on goods printed by them for their general balance, it being proved that such was the general custom of that trade.94 And it has also been held that where all the dyers, bleachers, printers, etc., of Manchester and vicinity entered into

87 Hensel v. Noble, 95 Pa. St. 345.

88 Chase v. Westmore, 5 Maule & S. 180.

89 Blake v. Nicholson, 3 Maule & S. 167.

90 McFarland v. Wheeler, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 467; Morgan v. Congdon, 4 N. Y. 552; Partridge v. Dartmouth College, 5 N. H. 286; Holderman v. Manier, 3 N. E. 811, 104 Ind. 118.

91 Miller v. Marston, 35 Me. 153.

92 Cumpston v. Haigh, 2 Bing. N. C. 449; Bennett v. Johnson, 2 Chit. 455; Ex parte Ockenden, 1 Atk. 235; Lilley v. Barnsley, 1 Car. & K. 347; Green v. Farmer, 4 Burrows, 2214; Brenan v. Currint, Sayer, 224; Nevan v. Roup, 8 Iowa, 207; Honig v. Knipe, 25 Mo. App. 574.

In the case of Ex parte Deeze, 1 Atk. 228, it was held that packers might hold goods delivered to them for packing until all debts from the owners to them were paid; but this case seems to have been determined upon evidence that it was usual for packers to lend money to clothiers, thus making the packer a sort of factor.

93 Savill v. Barchard, 4 Esp. 53. 94 Webb v. Fox, Peake, Add. Cas. 167.

an agreement not to receive goods except on condition that they should have a lien thereon for their general balance, such agreement was valid, and was binding against one who had notice of it.95 A lien for general balance may also be created by special contract. Thus, in a recent case in Pennsylvania, where it appeared that a dyer had for several years dyed and finished clothes for a manufacturing company as it sent them to him, and notice that he received goods only on condition that they were subject to a general lien, not only for the dyeing and finishing thereof, but also for the balance of any former amount due, was printed on most of the slips on which dyeing orders were written by the company, on the delivery slips signed by it or its employés, and on all bills and monthly statements mailed to it, such condition, in the absence of any denial that the notice was received and read by the company's officers and employés, was held to be part of the contract for dyeing.9

Rights of Third Persons.

98

§ 771. A mechanic's lien, being terminable on redemption, gives no fixed right of possession for any particular period, and does not concern third persons, if not asserted by the parties.97 A mechanic who repairs a chattel which is subject to an execution lien holds it subject to such lien, but a simple contract creditor of the owner cannot defeat the mechanic's lien by attaching the chattel in the hands of the mechanic.99 It has been held that a vendor's lien secured by a duly-recorded chattel mortgage takes precedence of a mechanic's lien for repairs subsequently done at the purchaser's request.100 But, as a general rule, where the mortgagee of chattels leaves the property in possession of the mortgagor, and the property is of a character that suggests use, and that repairs will be needed, and the mortgagor takes it to an artisan to be repaired, the common-law lien will attach in favor of the artisan as against the mort

95 Kirkman v. Shawcross, 6 Term R. 14.

96 Firth v. Hamill, 31 Atl. 676, 167 Pa. St. 382.

97 Bodine v. Simmons, 38 Mich. 682.

98 McCrisaken v. Osweiler, 70 Ind. 131.

99 Burdict v. Murray, 3 Vt. 302.

100 Denison v. Shuler, 11 N. W. 402, 47 Mich. 598.

gagee.101 Thus, in a Massachusetts case, it appeared that a hack described as in use at certain stables was mortgaged, and by the terms of the mortgage the mortgagor was to retain possession and use and enjoy the same until default. While so in possession, the mortgagor had it repaired, and it was held that the person making the repairs had a lien therefor as against the mortgagee.102 Where chattels are in the possession of a mechanic who has a lien on them at the time of their sale by the owner, the purchaser takes title subject to the lien.103 A statute making the lien for labor or materials furnished in repairing a threshing engine superior to mortgage liens prior in date, and created after the passage of the act, if the lien claim is filed within the time prescribed, is constitutional.10*

Who may Create the Lien.

§ 772. In order to create a mechanic's lien upon a chattel, the work must have been done by contract with the owner, or with some one authorized by him.105 Therefore an artisan who repairs a carriage under contract with one in possession under a contract of purchase which is not performed, and who knows the condition of the title, has no lien as against the vendor.1 Where one who

106

101 Kirtley v. Morris, 43 Mo. App. 144; Loss v. Fry, 1 City Ct. R. 7; Hammond v. Danielson, 126 Mass. 294. It has, however, been held that the mortgagor of a buggy, after the condition of the mortgage is broken, cannot create a lien thereon for repairs on such buggy. Hampton v. Seible, 58 Mo. App. 181.

102 Hammond v. Danielson, 126 Mass. 294.

103 Myers v. Uptegrove, 3 How. Prac. N. S. (N. Y.) 316. The lien given by the Maine statute to one who has labored in quarrying granite, upon all granite quarried by himself and his fellow workmen, for 30 days after such granite is cut and dressed, and as much longer as it remains unsold, and not shipped on board a vessel, will, if enforced by attachment within said 30 days, have precedence of all other claims, including sales made within that period. A laborer's attachment, made after that period has expired, will prevail against prior claims only when made before the stone is sold or shipped on board a vessel. Collins Granite Co. v. Devereaux, 72 Me. 422.

194 Garr v. Clements (S. D.) 62 N. W. 640.

105 Globe Works v. Wright, 106 Mass. 207; Clark v. Hale, 34 Conn. 398. 106 Small v. Robinson, 69 Me. 425. But if one who has obtained goods by fraud delivers them to an innocent artisan for work to be done on then, the latter's lien is superior to the right of the defrauded party to rescind the con