(l Hunt r. Haskell, 11 Shepl. 889; Lecky v. McDermott, 8 S. & B. 500; goods does * not defeat his lien on the remainder for his whole charge, (m) 1 But if there be two contracts to carry, with different termini to the voyage or transit in each contract, no lien attaches for freight under the one contract, upon goods shipped under the other, and improperly detained on board by the carrier; since no lien can be acquired by wrongful possession, (n) And if goods directed to one place be improperly carried on to another, no lien will attach, (o) 2

We are to consider next, a class of liens that arise, not from an enforced duty of the bailee, but from voluntary service performed at the request of the owner of the property. These liens are based upon usage, which, by its reasonableness and long continuance, has acquired the sanction of law. Such are the liens which are possessed by artisans generally, traders, and agents of various kinds.

A tradesman's lien is usually a special one, upon the article committed to him for the exercise of his trade thereon, and depends entirely upon possession. The rule was laid down in an early English case, and since that time has been generally followed, that wherever goods are delivered to a tradesman for the execution of the purposes of his trade upon them, he has a particular lien upon them, (p)3

Crumbacker v. Tucker, 4 Eng. (Ark.) 365; Bailey v. Shaw, 4 Fost. (N. H.) 297. In this case there was a count in trover for a quantity of wool which the defendants had purchased from a common carrier, to whom the plaintiff had intrusted it for transportation. The defendants contended, that as they had purchased of the carrier, in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, they were not answerable in the action. But the court instructed the jury, that although they should find the vendor to be a common carrier, and that as such he sold the wool to the defendants for a valuable consideration, in the absence of any marks to indicate the ownership of the goods, and the defendants purchased it in good faith, and converted or sold it before any claim was made by the plaintiff, they would still be liable for it. The case went up to the full bench, upon exceptions to this ruling among others; but the doctrine was fully sustained by the court; the cases, Hartop v. Hoare, 1 Wils. 8; McCombie v. Davis, 6 East, 538; Mowrey v. Walsh, 8 Cow. 238; Hoffman v Noble, 6 Met. 68; Covill v. Hill, 4 Denio, 323, being cited in support.

(m) Boggs v. Martin, 13 B. Mon. 239. (n) Bernal v. Pvm, 1 Gale, 17. (o) Bernal v. Pym, 1 Gale, 17; Ferguson v. Cappeau, 6 Har. & J. 400. Compare ante, p. * 252, n.

(p) Ex parte Deeze, 1 Atk. 228; Town1 Unless it was the intention of the parties so to do, which is a question of fact for the jury, Lane v. Old Colony R. Co. 14 Gray, 143; New Haven, Ac. Co. v. Campbell, 128 Mass. 104; even as against the right of the consignor to stop the undelivered goods in transitu, Potts v. New York, etc. R. Co. 131 Mass. 455. - K.

2 The last of two or more connecting carriers is entitled to a lien for freight on its own line, and also for the repayment of money advanced to secure the goods from the carrier from which they were received, even though the charges on the goods were in fact prepaid, or a special contract made in regard to them, provided the last carrier had no notice of this. Georgia R. R., etc. Co. v. Murrah, 85 Ga. 343; Wolf v. Hough, 22 Kan. 659; Crossan v. New York, Ac. R. R. Co. 149 Mass. 196. See also Union Express Co. v. Snoop, 85 Pa. 325; Knight v. Providence, Ac R. R. Co. 13 R. I. 572.

3 A tradesman's lien is not general for a balance of account, but specific upon the property on which his labor and expense is bestowed, and only gives him the right to retain it until the charges upon it are paid. Moulton v. Greene, 10 R I. 330. - K.

A lien of this kind may be acquired upon goods received from an agent, as well as from the owner himself. And where the agent who has this power of disposing of the property of his * principal so as to confer a lien, though he have no authority to raise money upon it, gets a loan from the tradesman upon a pledge of the property, the latter, being ignorant at the time that the agent is not the owner of the property, may retain it against the real owner, not only for his work upon the property, but also for the money advanced, (q)l

So where there is an advance made to the owner by the tradesman, upon the faith of a promise that the goods shall be committed to him, and the owner afterwards parts with the ownership, if the goods come to the tradesman's possession before the new owner can assume control of them, it seems that the tradesman may hold them, as well for the money advanced as for the work done upon them, (r) But if the goods be parted with, and the tradesman's lien thus lost, he cannot recover it by a stoppage in transitu, under the same circumstances that a vendor might. (s)

The tradesman's lien will, like the common carrier's, hold a part of the goods for the whole claim upon them, (t)2 But a lien send v. Newell, 14 Pick. 332; Mclntire v. Carver, 2 W. & Sgt. 392; Hanna v. Phelps, 7 Ind. 21; Moore v. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. 292. In the latter case it was decided, that where goods upon which a mechanic had alien, were taken on execution by a creditor of his employer, the mechanic could only recover in trover to the extent of his demand, and not to the fall value of the goods.

(q) Richardson v. Goes, 3 B. & P. 119.

(r) This is also decided in the case cited in the preceding note.

(s) Sweet v. Pym, 1 East, 4. The plaintiff, assignee of a bankrupt, brought an action of trover against the defendant, a fuller of cloth, for converting a quantity of cloths which belonged to the bankrupt's estate. The defendant had been intrusted with the cloths by the bankrupt for the purpose of fulling them, and, having finished them, had shipped them to the latter in compliance with his orders, taking no bill of lading, but sending an invoice of the cloths. Soon after the vessel sailed, the defendant heard of the bankruptcy of his employer; and having a claim against him for a general balance, he intercepted the vessel before its arrival at the port of destination, took from the captain a bill of lading of the goods to his own order, and, by virtue thereof, received the goods upon their being landed. The defendant claimed to hold the cloths by virtue of his general lien, existing by the custom of trade. The Court of King's Bench held, that the custody of the goods was changed by the delivery to the captain for transportation to tie owner, by his order and at his expense; and as the defendant's right of lien for his general balance could not extend beyond the time of his actual possession, judgment must be given for the plaintiff.