keeper; for it is immaterial whether the owner's possession be more or less, if he has a right to assert it at all, and to interrupt the possession of the party claiming the lien.

which

*PATTESON, J.-I have no doubt, that according to the general principles of lien, and independently of contract or usage, [*685 may qualify any particular case, a trainer of race horses employs that sort of skill and labour which would entitle him to a lien. But this is not the only consideration; to complete the right of lien there must be the continuing right of possession. Whether there is such a right of possession in any case must depend on the nature of the particular contract or custom applicable to the subject-matter. Here it appears that the owner of the horses might send them to be ridden by a jockey of his own choice at any race he chose. The trainer could not refuse to deliver them to the owner for this purpose. This state of things is inconsistent with a lien the trainer, as to the right of uninterrupted possession, was on the same footing with a livery-stable keeper, who, it is admitted, has no lien. An innkeeper's lien stands on a different principle; he has a lien on the guest's horse, because the law obliges him to take it in. My brother PARKE's view of the trainer's lien, as stated by him in Jackson v. Cummins, 5 M. & W. 350, 351,† exactly supports our decision, which is also quite consistent with his observation in the same case, that, where a horse is to be trained for a specified race, the trainer may have a lien for his charges until the horse is given up.

COLERIDGE, J.-I also have no doubt that the skill and labour of a trainer are a good foundation for a lien; because he educates an untaught animal, and otherwise adapts it for a particular purpose, and thereby greatly improves its value. But it is a well established principle that, without the right of continuing possession, there *can be [*686 no right of lien. Now a good test of the existence of such right of possession is to consider in whose possession the race horse is when it is employed in doing that for which it has been trained. The evidence showed that the horse, during the race, was in the owner's possession, and in his possession rightfully and according to usage or contract. The horse, before the race, is placed for convenience in the stable of the trainer; but during the race it is in the care of the jockey nominated by the owner. It appears too that, if, on any occasion, the jockey were selected by the trainer, the trainer, pro hâc vice, would have only the delegated authority of the owner. I think it is part of the understanding that the owner shall have the possession and control of the horse. to run at any race. This is quite inconsistent with the trainer's continuing right of possession.

ERLE, J.-The principles which govern this case are clear. A trainer of race horses has the benefit of one general principle, that the person exercising care and skill in the improvement of a chattel is entitled to a lien on such chattel for his charges in respect of his care and skill.

But there is another general principle; that, in order to complete a right of lien, there must be a continuing right of possession; and this principle defeats the claim of lien in the present case. It is quite clear upon

the evidence that the owner was entitled to have his horses re-delivered to him for the purpose of running at any races he pleased: and this is quite inconsistent with the trainer's right of continuing possession. Rule absolute.(a)

(a) The argument on this day, and the judgment, are reported by H. Davison, Esq.

It is the very essence of a lien that the person claiming it has the possession of the chattel upon which the lien is claimed to operate. Jordan v. James, 5 Ham. 88. A factor loses his lien on the goods of his principal by tortiously pledging them. Jarvis v. Rogers, 15 Mass. 389, 396; Holly v. Huggeford, 8 Pick. 73. An artisan has a lien upon the article manufactured

by him until he is paid for his labour, or parts with the possession, pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Moore v. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. 292.

Where a person has a lien on certain articles for work done upon them, a delivery of the articles without his consent does not affect his rights. Partridge v. College, 5 N. Hamp. 286.

*687]

*SCADDING v. LORANT and PATRICK.
[Feb. 3, 1847.]

By the St. Pancras select vestry act, 59 G. 3, c. xxxix. s. 69, the vestrymen, or any seven or more of them, were empowered and required from time to time to meet for the purpose of making a poor rate, notice of such meeting and the purpose thereof being first given, and at such meeting or meetings to make one or more rates for relief of the poor, &c.; and all such rates, when signed by the said vestrymen or any seven, &c., and allowed, &c., by two justices, were to be collected, &c. By sect. 4 the vestrymen were authorized, at any meeting, to adjourn themselves to meet at such future time and such place as they should appoint, &c.; notice of such adjourned meeting being given to every vestryman.

An avowry for a distress under warrant to levy a poor rate for St. Pancras stated: That a vestry meeting was held on 12th August, 1839, for the purpose of making a poor rate, notice of such meeting, and of the purpose thereof, having been duly given: That, at such meeting, a certain poor rate was unanimously agreed upon and made: That, after the making of the said rate, to wit, on 14th September, 1839, a certain other meeting of the vestrymen was held, the vestrymen assembled at the former meeting having adjourned themselves to meet on this day, and notice of the said adjourned meeting (not adding, "and of the purpose thereof") having been given to every vestryman. That, at such last-mentioned meeting, the rate so agreed upon and made at the former meeting was signed by eight vestrymen who had been present at such former meeting. It was also averred that, after the making of the said rate, a special meeting of the vestrymen was summoned (with proper notice), and held on 28th August, 1839, and at such meeting (the same being the next meeting subsequent to that first mentioned) the said rate, so agreed upon and made at the first meeting, was confirmed by the vestrymen present, Allowance and publication of the rate were also averred. Replication, De injuriâ. It was proved that, at the meeting of 12th August, notice of which, and of the purpose, had been duly given, the vestry resolved that a poor rate of 18. in the pound be made and laid, &c., "and the said rate is hereby made and laid accordingly:" but nothing was done beyond pass ing such resolution; and the vestry adjourned to September 4th, when they met for other business and adjourned to the 9th, when they again transacted other business and adjourned to the 14th. Notice was given of all the adjourned meetings, but not of the purpose of any of them. A meeting was duly held in the mean time, on the 28th August, not by adjournment, but by special summons, authorized by the local act, for business relative to the workhouse; and the minutes of the vestry meeting at which the rate had been resolved upon were then confirmed, as stated in the avowry. On September 14th, it was resolved that the rate books, which had been made out since the former meeting, should be signed by the ves trymen, and they signed the books, by writing their names at the foot of the declaration required

by stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 2. The rate was duly allowed, &c. Some of the vestrymen who attended at the original meeting of the 12th August and the several adjourned meetings, and who took part in the business transacted at these meetings, and who signed the rate books, were vestrymen de facto only, having been illegally elected. On these facts, stated in a special case, with the question "whether or not they sustained the avowry?"— Held, by the Court of Queen's Bench, that no rate was in fact made on the 12th August. And that the rate could not be considered as made on the 14th September, or on the two days or either of them by the joint effect of the meetings held on each, there having been no direct adjournment from 12th August to 14th September, and no proper notice having been given that the meeting on the latter day was for the purpose of making a rate. And that, independently of this defect in proof, the signing on September 14th, of a rate only resolved upon by the vestry on August 12th, did not support the allegation that a rate made on the lastmentioned day was signed on September 14th.

Held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, on Error, reversing the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench:

That the allegation, in the avowry, that a rate was made at the meeting on the 12th August, was proved by the fact found, that the rate was begun at that meeting and completed on the 14th September, to which day the meeting was duly adjourned by successive adjournments; because all these meetings in law constituted one.

That no notice of the purpose of the adjourned meetings was necessary.

That the allegation, that the rate was signed at "a certain other meeting" on the 14th September, was also proved, because, though that meeting continued to be the same as the meeting of 12th August until the rate was completed, it might be treated as a different meeting at the time of signing the rate after it had been completed.

That the rate made by vestrymen de facto was valid.

That the rate was well signed, for that the signatures to the declaration at the foot of the rate under stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 2, answered also the purpose of signatures to the rate itself under the local act.

REPLEVIN. Avowry by Lorant, as one of the collectors of the poor rates of St. Pancras, Middlesex, and cognisance by Patrick, as a peace officer, acting *in execution of the warrant after mentioned. [*688 That plaintiff was the occupier of certain rateable property St. Pancras. That, on 12th August, 1839, a meeting of vestrymen of the said parish was held at the vestry rooms in pursuance of stat. 59 G. 3, c. xxxix., local and personal, public, (a) for the purpose of making a rate for the relief of the poor, &c., according to the several laws in that behalf; at which meeting there were present more than seven of the vestrymen, to wit, &c. (naming twenty-two.(b)) That notice of such meeting and of the purpose thereof had been duly given. That, at such meeting, "a certain rate or assessment of 18. in the pound was adjudged and determined to be necessary, and was then and there unanimously agreed upon and made by all the vestrymen present," "in and towards. the relief and maintenance of the poor," and other the purposes, &c.; and that the rate was made upon an estimate, &c. (according to stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 1); and "that such rate, in addition to every other particular which the form of making *out such rate required to be set forth, contained an account of every particular set forth [*689 at the head of the respective columns in the form given in the schedule annexed to a certain act," &c. (6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96), "so far as the same could be ascertained; and which said rate or assessment then was such

(a) "For establishing a select vestry in the parish of St. Pancras, in the county of Middlesex, and for other purposes relating thereto."

(b) The proceedings were very fully set out: the material parts only are here stated. VOL. XIII-52

2M

66

a general rate or assessment as by the several laws then in force and effect churchwardens and overseers of the poor then were enabled or empowered to make." That, after the making of the said rate, and before the allowance or confirmation thereof," "as hereinafter mentioned, and whilst the said property of the plaintiff, and the said plaintiff in respect thereof, were so liable to be rated as aforesaid, viz. on the 14th day of September, A. D. aforesaid, a certain other meeting of the vestrymen of the parish aforesaid," "was held in pursuance of the said firstmentioned act, to wit, at the said vestry rooms," &c., at which meeting were present more than seven, &c., to wit, &c.; naming thirteen. That, the vestrymen present at the meeting of vestrymen of the said parish convened and held according to the provisions of the said act of parliament herein before first above mentioned, and which last preceded the said last-mentioned meeting (to wit) of the said 14th day of September, having adjourned themselves to meet at the time and place last aforesaid, to wit, the said 14th day of September, at the vestry rooms," &c., “a printed notice of the said last-mentioned meeting so to be held by adjournment," with the name of the vestry clerk thereto subjoined, was left at the place of abode of every vestryman of the parish three days before the appointed day of meeting. That, at the said last-mentioned meeting so held," &c., "the said rate so agreed upon and made at the *690] said *first-mentioned meeting in manner and form as hereinbefore mentioned was then and there duly signed by eight of the said vestrymen present, to wit, William Pickman, Richard Horspool, James Cooper Harnden, John Perrett, Thomas Braithwaite, Robert Stock, John Arnell, and Robert Bloomfield Clarke, then being vestrymen of the said parish by virtue of the said act hereinbefore first above mentioned, and which said last-mentioned eight vestrymen so present at the said lastmentioned meeting, and so then and there signing the said rate as last aforesaid, were also present at the said first-mentioned meeting, and at the time the said rate was so unanimously agreed to and made as aforesaid." That, at the last-mentioned meeting, after the signing of the rate, and before allowance, the same eight vestrymen signed a declaration at the foot of the rate as required by stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 2, and schedule.

That, at the several times of such meetings as aforesaid, proper entries were respectively made in a proper book theretofore and in that behalf provided by the vestry of the said parish, and kept for that purpose, of the names of the several vestrymen who attended the said meetings respectively, to wit, the vestrymen aforesaid, and of all orders and proceeding made and taken respectively at such meetings; and such book hath always hitherto at all reasonable times been and still is open to the inspection of the vestrymen," rate-payers and creditors on the rates, without fee, &c., according to the statute, &c.

..That, after the making of the said rate, and before the allowance

and confirmation," &c., "hereinafter mentioned, a certain special meeting of the vestrymen of the said parish was duly summoned and held at the vestry rooms," &c., "on the 28th day of August, A. D. *afore[*691 said, in pursuance of the said first-mentioned act, at which said last-mentioned meeting there were present more than thirteen vestrymen of the said parish, to wit," &c.; naming eighteen; and of which lastmentioned meeting and the purpose thereof, &c. (averment of notice). "That such last-mentioned meeting was the next subsequent meeting to the said meeting herein before first mentioned." "That, at such lastmentioned meeting," "the said rate so agreed upon and made at the said first-mentioned meeting as hereinbefore mentioned was then and there unanimously confirmed, to wit, by the said vestrymen present at such last-mentioned meeting, and a sufficient and proper entry was then and there made of such confirmation in a proper book theretofore provided and kept by the vestry of the said parish for such purpose, and also proper entries of the names of the several vestrymen" who attended that meeting, and of all orders and proceedings there, &c.; which book hath always been open to inspection, &c.

The defendants went on to aver that the rate was allowed and published; that an assessment on the plaintiff, amounting to 117., was stated and contained therein, &c. ; that the sum was demanded of him and not paid; and that proceedings were thereupon taken, the result of which was the issuing of a distress warrant, under which the defendants seized. Verification.

Plea in bar, suggesting the death of Patrick: whereupon a stay of proceedings was ordered as to him. As to Lorant's avowry: De injuriâ. Issue thereon.

On the trial, before WIGHTMAN, J., at the Middlesex sittings after Michaelmas term, 1843, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of this *Court upon a special case, with liberty to either party to turn the case into a special verdict. The case was stated; and the material parts were as follows.

[*692

The parish of St. Pancras was governed by a select vestry under the local act till 1832, when it adopted Sir John Hobhouse's Act, 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 60; and from that time its affairs were managed under the local act, modified by that of 1 & 2 W. 4. The election of vestrymen was annual, one third going out by rotation; and vacancies by death, &c., were filled up at the same time. The proper number of vestrymen was 120, in addition to the vicar and churchwardens.

The case then set forth the proceedings at a vestry meeting on 6th May, 1839, for the election of vestrymen; when a poll was demanded, and, upon such poll, forty-six duly qualified vestrymen were elected, but illegally, as the plaintiff contended on the argument in this case. It is not thought necessary to state here the facts constituting the alleged illegality; an account of them will be found in Regina v. The Vestry