(b) Snook v Davidson, 2 Camp 2I8.

(c) Lanyon v. Blanchard, 2 Camp. 597. And see Richardson 0. Goss, 3 B. & P. 119; Pultney v. Kymer, 3 Esp. 182.

(d) Mann v. Forrester. 4 Camp. 60; Westwood v Bell, 4 Camp. 349

(e) Leuckhart v. Cooper, 2 Hodg. 150, 3 Bing N. C. 99 name, to set off, against his own debt for premiums, the loss due from the underwriter to his principal, upon that policy, seems to sustain the view we have here taken. (f)

* A wharfinger's lien is both particular and general. His rights are regarded as coextensive with those of a factor. (g) By admiralty law, the wharfinger's lien on a foreign ship has priority over the bottomry interest (h) But this lien does not extend, by common law or by usage, to goods not actually landed on the wharf, though the vessel be fastened to the wharf, and unloaded in that situatioa (i)l

(f) Moody v, Webster, 3 Pick. 428. This case was one growing oat of the Spanish indemnity treaty of 1819, for spoliations on American commerce. The defendant had collected a portion of the indemnity money, as compensation for losses paid by an insurance broker, the policies and deeds of abandonment retained by the broker at the time the losses were paid by him to the insured, being used before the commission for the purpose of establishing the claim for indemnity for these losses. The under-writer with whom the broker had effected the insurances in question, had subsequently become bankrupt, being indebted to the broker upon losses paid for him by the latter, to a much larger amount than the broker owed him for premiums. The broker did not prove his claim against the bankrupt estate, but died retaining the documents which evidenced the payments he had made for account of the bankrupt underwriter. The assignees of the underwriter laid claim to the indemnity money in the hands of the defendant, as part of the bankrupt's estate, and the defendant claimed to hold it for the executors of the deceased broker, by virtue of the broker's general lien upon policies in his hands and their proceeds, to indemnify him for moneys paid by him on account thereof. The court were clearly of opinion, that if the money in Question had been received by the broker for premiums on policies procured by him from the underwriter, he would have been entitled to deduct therefrom the amount of losses paid by him for the underwriter, and would have been liable only for the balance. This right of set-off the court regarded as resulting from the implication of the law touching this subject, and as not requiring any express agreement. Viewing the indemnity money, not as a gratuity belonging to the former owners of the vessels, but as a satisfaction for illegal capture, the court considered It as of the nature of salvage, and therefore in the hands of the broker, or of his legal representatives, as properly subject to his lieu As to the rights of an insurauce broker, the court say: "Where he acts under a del credere commission, he may be permitted to set off losses against the claim of the underwriter for premiums, which he would not be allowed to do if he were acting as a broker without such a commission; because under such a commission he procures policies for his principals in his own name, although as agent, and he is considered, as between the underwriters and himself, as the owner of the policies. And this arises from his increased liability to the assured for the losses. He is, in such cases, therefore, permitted to set off losses, in the same manner as he would be if he were the sole proprietor of the property and the policies He is also liable to the underwriter for the premiums in such cases. The underwriter and the assured, in short, treat with the broker, having such a commission, as with a principal But where one effects policies as agent, in his own name, without such a commission and such liabilities, and a loss happens, it belongs exclusively to the principal, and the Dicker cannot set it off against the premiums claimed from him by the underwriter, unless he should have paid it pursuant to the authority given to him by the underwriter. From thenceforward it would become an item in their mutual accounts."

(g) Rex v Humphrey, I M'CleL & Y. 188; Spears v. Hartley, 3 Esp. 81

(h) Et parte Lewis, 2 Gall 483.

(i) Seyda v. Hay, 4T.R 260.

1 In Moet 9. Pickering, 6 Ch. D. 770, 8 Ch. D. 372, it was held that wharfingers had a lien on bottles of wine though the branding on the corks infringed the plaintiffs' trademark, and that this lien had priority over any lien the plaintiffs might have for costs of a suit to enjoin the infringement.

A warehouseman's lien extends to all demands for storage and expenses paid which he may have against the owner who deposits the goods with him (j) He has also a particular lien upon the goods for the charges thereon, where they are deposited by an agent of the owner; but no general lien for the balance due from such agent (k) No lien is acquired where the property is deposited without the sanction of the owner, express or implied; and if he claims to retain the property on a ground inconsistent with the right, it will operate as a waiver of the lien (I)

* An attorney's lien for his costs extends to all papers and money of his client which come into his hands in his professional capacity, for the purposes of business, whether they come into his hands in the particular cause, or on the particular occasion in which his demand arises, or not (m)l But it is only when he has in his possession the instrument on which his client's right to the money paid into court rests, that he has a right of general lien on the fund recovered, (n) He has also a lien upon judgments obtained for his client; and the courts will grant an order to stop the client from receiving the money recovered, (o)l until the attorney's bill is paid. And if defendant's attorney pay the amount of a judgment to the plaintiff, after notice from the attorney of the latter not to do so, because his bill is not satisfied, he will be liable to the plaintiff's attorney for the amount of his lien for bill against the plaintiff, (p)2 But the lien on the cause for his fees does not attach until the judgment is entered. Therefore, where in a case reserved, after the opinion of the court was pronounced in favor of the plaintiff, he forthwith assigned his interest in the judgment, and the defendant, during the term, and before the judgment was actually entered, paid the whole amount to the assignee, - it was held that the attorney's lien was thereby defeated, (q) He has also a lien on money levied by a sheriff under an execution, and is entitled to have it paid over to him, notwithstanding notice to the officer to retain it, and of a motion to set aside the judgment for irregularity, (r)