(t) Partridge v. Dartm. Col. 5N. H 286.

1 A wheelwright, repairing a wagon brought to him by the husband, who has the use of it, but owned by the wife, has a lien thereon as against the latter for his charges. White v. Smith, 15 Vroom, 105. - K.

2 A tradesman's or artisan's lien is equally good, whether there is an express agreement for or merely an implied contract for compensation; and where there is an entire contract for a certain sum to make or repair several articles, the lien rests on one or two articles in his possession, not only for their proportionate part of repairing the whole, but for the amount due for labor, etc., on all the articles. Hensel v. Noble, 95 Pa.345. - K.

on a chattel for labor and materials, gives no right at common law to sell the chattel to enforce the lien, (u) And by giving credit for a specific time, a tradesman loses his lien, (v) but the lien would attach if the property remained in his hands at the time the credit expired, and the money due was not paid. Printers and publishers have a lien on works for the charge for printing, * but not upon the stereotype plates put into their hands for that purpose; unless they have paid the cost of the plates, in which case they may hold them for money thus paid, (w)

Some trades have a custom for a general lien upon all an employer's goods, for the general balance due for work. This has been more distinctly recognized in England than in this country. Among others, calico-printers enjoy this lien; also fullers, in some localities, and perhaps dyers, though this admits of some doubt Packers also have a lien for their general balance, including advances of money; they being regarded, to some extent, as factors, (x) Tailors and millers have only a particular lien for work done upon the goods committed to them; but a tailor does not lose his lien by permitting his customer to try on the suit in his presence, (y)

(u) Doane v. Russell, 3 Gray, 382.

(v) Raitt v. Mitchell, 4 Camp. 146; Fielding v. Mills, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 489.

(w) Bleaden v. Hancock, M. & M. 465, 4 Car. & P. 152. In this case the defendant claimed to hold certain stereotyped plates for his charges in printing from them, and the assignees of the owners brought trover against him. To establish the defence, witnesses were called, some of whom testified to instances in which the claim of lien upon stereotype and copper plates had been made and acquiesced in; while others testified to instances in which it had been successfully resisted. Tindal, C. J., left it to the jury to say, whether any course of dealing, so general and uniform as to amount to a usage, had been affirmatively established by the evidence; remarking, that this was not the case of a lien claimed by one who has bestowed labor or ex-pended money upon an article, and who may detain it till he is paid. The jury found against the claim of lien, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff. In Dodsworth v Jones, 4 Duer, 201, the plaintiff sought to obtain possession of certain stereotype plates made by the defendant upon the order of a firm of printers, whom the plaintiff had contracted with to print and publish a music-book composed by him. The printers set up the matter to cast the plates from, and furnished it to the defendant, but failed before the plates were delivered to them, owing the defendant about $300, besides the sum charged for making the plates in question, which was 390. The plaintiff settled with the printers, paid their bill including their charge for the stereotype plates, and took from them an order on the defendant, requesting the delivery of the plates to the plaintiff on his paying the amount of the defendant's lien thereon for the work done. The order was presented by the plaintiff, and the sum of $95 tendered; out the defendant refused to give up the plates unless the whole amount of the debt owed by the printers was paid, stating the sum at $400. The court below gave a pro"forma verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the question of law whether he could maintain the action. It was held, by the full bench, that the plaintiff could not recover in this form of action, unless he could prove that he was entitled to the possession of the plates at the time the action was commenced; that the tender to defendant, not accepted by him, did not divest him of his title and transfer it to the plaintiff; and therefore the verdict must be set aside.

(x) Green v. Farmer, 4 Burr. 2222; Ex parte Deeie, 1 Atk. 228.

A vendor of chattels has, as we have seen, a lien upon them, by common law, as long as they continue in his possession, and the vendee neglects to pay or tender the price, (z)l By the sale, * the general property vests in the vendee, but a lien or special property remains in the vendor; and therefore this special property will be a good defence in an action of trover. A part payment will not divest this lien. As, if anything remains to be done to the thing purchased, by the vendor, before it can be delivered to the vendee, the property does not pass, here there is no mere lien in the vendor; but the general property in the article remains in him, because the sale is not completed, (a) If, by the conditions of sale, it is apparent that the vendor relied solely upon the personal credit of the vendee, as where the day of payment is postponed, the lien does not attach. A delivery to the vendee, or his agent, divests the lien; and this whether the delivery be actual, or merely symbolic or constructive: as, by giving the vendee the key of the warehouse where the goods are stored, or by actual delivery of a part only of the goods sold under an entire contract (b)2 If, however, the symbolic or constructive

(y) Hughes v Lenny, 5 Mees. ft W. 187.

(z) Mason v. Lickbarrow, 1 H. Black. 363; Parks v. Hall, 2 Pick. 206.

(a) Hanson o. Mever, 6 East, 614.

(b) Copeland v. Stein, 8 T. R. 199; Sibley v. Hayward, 2 H. Black. 504; Hammond v. Anderson, 1 B. ft P. N. R. 69; Parks v. Hall, 2 Pick. 206. In this case a debtor had assigned goods to the plaintiff, to secure him for advances made, and given him possession of them. The debtor subsequently agreed with the plaintiff to pay him in money and approved securities, and receive the goods back again. The money and securities were accordingly paid, part of the goods were actually delivered to the debtor, and arrangements made for the surrender of the balance. The debtor took possession of the balance of the goods, without the direct co-operation of the plaintiff, and they were then attached by the defendant, a sheriff, upon the suit of another creditor of the debtor. Part of the securities taken by the plaintiff having failed, he claimed to hold a lien upon the property attached, and brought an action of trespass against the defendant. The court held, that, if the first transaction amounted to a mortgage from the debtor to secure the plaintiff s advances, delivery be conditional, and the condition be not performed by the vendee, the vendor may retain the whole, or whatever part remains, for the price of the whole, (c) But where a delivery of part of the goods is in pursuance of a manifest intention to separate that part from the residue, and consequently not made in progress of, or with a view to the delivery of, the whole, the lien on the remainder will not thereby be divested, (d) And it is no waiver of a condition for payment * on delivery, so as to divest the right of lien upon what remains, that the vendor merely allows the purchaser to take away a part of the goods without payment, (e)