(g) Coggs v. Bernard, Ld. Raymond, 909; Rex v. Cording, 1 N. & M. 35.

(h) Mores v. Connam, Owen, 123.

1 Potter v. Thompson. 10 R. 1.1, decided that commercial paper pledged as security might be sold by the pledgee at auction after the same had matured. - K.

2 Voluntary relinquishment of the subject-matter of a lien discharges it, unless the contract, course of business, or the parties' intention is that it shall continue. Robinto the owner for a temporary purpose, as agent or special bailee of the pledgee, without destroying the lien; (i) and if the possession be terminated by fraud, the lien will revive if possession be regained (j)

It is a universal rule, that a prior lien gives a prior claim, which is entitled to prior satisfaction out of the subject it binds, unless the lien be intrinsically defective, or be displaced by some act of the party holding it, which shall postpone him, in a court of law or equity, to some subsequent claimant. (k)

Liens exist by common law, or are created either by usage, by statute, or by express agreement of parties.1 As above indicated, the particular lien which is recognized at common law, had its origin in some consideration of necessity for the public good, in the class of transactions to which it was allowed son v. Larrabee, 63 Me. 116; Reineman v C. C. & B. R. R. 51 la. 338. A mechanic loses his lien upon a chattel for labor performed on it by voluntarily relinquishing possession of it to the owner, nor will such lien exist at all if a future day of payment has been agreed on Tucker v Taylor. 53 Ind. 93. - K.

The liens created by common law may be divided into two classes, distinguished from each other by the mode in which possession is acquired, namely, those held by bailees, as tradesmen, carriers, inn-keepers, and farriers; and those held by persons not bailees, as vendors, salvors: or, by virtue of some legal right, as * impounders of stray cattle. The mere 6nder of goods on land, unlike the salvor of property at sea, has no lien thereon for his trouble or expense in taking care of and preserving the goods found; and an action of trover will He against him if he attempts to retain them from the true owner on

(i) Hayes v Riddle, 1 Sandf 248: Reeves v. Capper, 5 Bing. N. C. 136 See this case, note {k), p. " 600, vol. I.

(j) Wallace v. Woodgate, R. & M. 193. This was an action of trover for three horses. The defendant was a horse-dealer, and sold the horses in question to the plaintiff, and had taken his bills of exchange in payment. The horses, after the sale, were kept at the defendant's livery stables, and there was evidence to show that the plaintiff had agreed with the defendant that they should remain with him until their keep was paid for. The plaintiff was in the habit of using the horses while they were kept by the defendant, and one day, under pretence of using them, he took them entirely away to other stables. The defendant, finding out where they were kept, in the absence of the plaintiff, repossessed himself of them, upon which the plaintiff brought this action, and the defence was. that the defendant had a right to retain the horses until the keep was paid for, he having a lien by agreement. Best, C. J , in sum ming up, told the jury that a livery-stable keeper had not, by law, a lien for the keep of horses, unless by special agreement with the owner: and that if they were satisfied there was an agreement to that effect, and that the plaintiff had removed the horses in order to defraud the defend ant of his lien, their verdict must be for the defendant. That he had a right, without force, to retake the horses, and that being so repossessed, his lien revived. (k) Rankin v Scott, 12 Wheat. 177.

1 Implied liens, in the absence of express language, are not favored unless the intention to create them is plain Owens v. CIaytor, 56 Md. 129. As to distinction between statutory and common-law liens, see Quimby v. Haxen, 54 Vt 132. - K a claim for compensation.1 But it seems that if the owner have offered a specific reward for the restoration of the goods, the finder has a lien upon them, and may retain possession, if the owner refuse to pay the reward. (I)2

As to liens by usage of trade, both the fact and the extent of the usage are matters of evidence. Custom is presumed to be founded on usage, repeated so frequently, and so notoriously, that everybody may be considered bound to take notice of it. (m) Most commonly this usage of trade is appealed to for the support of general liens. For this purpose strong proof is required, and if there be also a common-law particular lien, the evidence of custom, in favor of a general lien also, must be still stronger. The custom given in evidence to establish ancient usage of trade in favor of a general lien, must be a reasonable one. Thus, where it was shown that there was a custom of*warehousemen to hold all goods deposited with them for the general balance due from the party depositing, whether that party were the owner of the goods or not, the court pronounced the custom to be unreasonable and unjust, and therefore bad in law. (n) But when a custom has been frequently proved and allowed to exist in any particular trade, the court will not permit it to be disregarded. Thus, Lord Kenyon said upon this subject, that he considered a usage of trade which had been so often proved, a settled point; (o) and this authority was fully confirmed at a later day by Lord Ellenborough. (p) A general lien may also be established, as to all subsequent bailments (where the trade is such that the bailee is not compellable by law to receive), by giving express notice to the bailor; any future bailment being regarded as a token of assent on the part of the bailor. And the same effect has been given to a public notice of the proceedings of a body of tradesmen, who assembled together and adopted an agreement among themselves, not to receive any goods to manufacture in the course of their trade, except upon condition of having a lien upon them for any general balance due; knowledge of the notice having been brought home to the party, (q) But notice, though brought to the knowledge of the bailor, if not assented to, will not give a general lien to those who, from the nature of their business, are under obligation to accept employment There may, in any case, be a general lien by particular usage of the parties. It is held, that a new loan, where there is already a security for a prior loan, may be evidence that the security covers the new loan as well as the old. (r) Where long-continued acts, inconsistent with the right, afford a presumption that the lien claimed, whether general or particular, has never existed, the claim will not be allowed. (s)