Taking other security for the debt will discharge a lien upon personal property;l and even the taking of the party's own nego(j) Scarfe 9. Morgan, 4_Mees. & W. 270.

(k) Fergusson v. Norman, 5 Bing. N. C. 76; Strong p. Hart, 6 B. & C. 160; 9 D & R. 189.

(l) White v. Gainer, 2 Bing. 23; 1 C. & P. 324.

(m) Lord v. Jones, 11 ShepL 439. In this case the Supreme Court of Maine decided, that a farrier, having acquired a lien upon a horse for the cost of his care and cure, and having subsequently, while the horse remained in his possession, bought him from the person who had committed the animal to his care, under the false belief that this person was the owner of the horse, did not thereby waive his lien; because, by the want of title in the vendor, the contract was not effectual or operative for any purpose.

(n) Brennan v. Currint, Sayer, 224; Chase v. Westmore, 5 M. & S. 180.

(o) Met. Yelv. 66; Gibbs C. J., in Hatton v. Bragg, 7 Taunt. 14.

1 In In re Leitb's estate, L. R. t P. C. 296, it was held that though generally a consignee of a West India estate had a lien on the plantation for the balance due him, yet where there was an express contract in regard to his services, with security, there was no lien. Lord Westburq said (p. 305): "But lien is not the result of express contract; it is given by implication of law. If, therefore, a mercantile relation, which might involve a lien, is created by a written contract, and security given for the result of the dealings in that relation, the express stipulation and agreement of the parties tiable note or bill payable at a future time; (p) unless the paper be dishonored, while the property remains in his hands, then, if the taker holds or is liable on the paper, the lien would revive. (q) If the note or bill given by the vendee for goods * come back to his hands again, bona fide, though the vendor has not received value for it, the lien of the vendor, destroyed by taking the negotiable paper, will not revive so as to enable him to retain the goods from the vendee, (r) The princi(p) Hewison 0. Guthrie, 2 Bing. N. C 755; 2 Hodges, 54.

(q) Feise 0. Wray, 3 East, 93; New v. Swain, I Dans. & Lloyd, Merc C. 193. Castle v Sworder, 6 Hurl. & N. 828. In this case, beard in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, on appeal from the Exchequer Court, the question of vendor's lien upon goods sold upon credit, but remaining in the actual possession of the vendor after the time of credit had ex-pired, was incidentally discussed; and the judges seemed to be of opinion that in such a case a lien would attach, unless the circumstances clearly showed that the character of vendor had changed to that of warehouseman. The defendant had bought of the plaintiffs, through their travelling agent, a quantity of liquors in bond, upon a credit of six months, and the plaintiffs had marked off the specific casks sold, in their bonded warehouse book, and sent the defendant an invoice and letter stating that the goods could remain in bond, free of storage, for six months. The defendant retained the invoice, and after the time of credit had expired, upon being applied to by the travelling agent of the plaintiffs for the payment of the price, he did not pay, but asked the agent to take the goods back, or to sell them for him, which was declined He subsequently wrote a letter to the plaintiffs, asking them what they would give for them He bought the goods by sample, and never examined them, and the casks were never actually removed from the plaintiffs bonded warehouse. The plaintiffs sued for the price, and the defendant resisted, on the ground that there was no delivery or acceptance of the goods, to satisfy the statute of frauds. A verdict was taken for the defendant, with leave to the plaintiffs to move for a verdict for the amount claimed, if the Court of Exchequer should be of opinion that there was any evidence on which a jury might find for the plaintiffs. A rule nisi was accordingly obtained. Upon argument before the Court of Exchequer, the judges delivered judgment seriatim, unanimously discharging the rule. At the hearing before the Court of Exchequer Chamber, upon appeal, the argument was urged for the defendant, that as the vendor's lien attached after the expiration of the credit, there could have been no sufficient delivery and acceptance to take the case out of the statute of frauds; but the court regarded the question of lien as not arising in this case; for the possession of the plaintiffs being originally that of vendors, was converted by the subsequent dealings into a possession as agents of the vendee. Upon the main question, the judges were unanimously of opinion, that there was evidence upon which the jury might find for the plaintiffs, and they accordingly reversed the judgment of the court below. - The authority of New v. Swain, was not questioned in 4th edition of this work, as erroneously stated by Bytes, J., in the above report from 6 Hurl & Nor. 828 -See Miles ';. Gorton, 2 Cr. & M. 504 Er-parte, Willoughby, 16 Ch. D. 604.

(r) Bunney v. Poyntz, 1 N. & M 229: 4 B. & Ad. 568. This was an action of trover for twenty tons of hay which an for security exclude lien, and limits their rights by the extent of the express contract that they have made Erpressum facit cessarc taciturn. If a consignee takes an express security, it excludes general lien " But in Angus v Mc Lachlan, 23 Ch. D. 330, it was held, that an innkeeper who took security from a guest for the payment of charges did not thereby waive his lien on the goods of the guest, and Kay, J., said: (p 335) "As I understand the law, it is not the mere taking of a security which destroys the lien, but there must be something in the facts of the case, or in the nature of the security taken, which is inconsistent with the existence of the lien and which is destructive of it" It was also held, that taking security did not discharge a lien, in Story v. Flournoy, 55 Ga. 56 ; and Block v. Latham, 63 Tex. 414. See Thames v. Caldwell, 60 Ala. 644 ple upon which the law considers the taking a security as a waiver of the lien, is not the result of a mere usage of trade, or of the rule of law that the special contract determines the implied one; but is prompted by the consideration of the inconvenience that would result from detaining the goods from the uses of trade, by extending a lien during the whole period which the security has to run. (s) The security, however, may be received under such special circumstances, as not to operate as a waiver of the lien. * But in a case where an owner of a vessel took a bond from the freighter, binding the goods shipped in a penal sum for non-performance of the covenants, it was held, that there was no lien for dead freight or demurrage. (t)