So by statute 1800, c. 57. s. 1, if any person or persons shall, within this commonwealth, aid or assist in the erection of any lottery, not authorized by a law of this commonwealth, or of the congress of the United States, by printing, writing, or otherwise; or shall aid and assist in in any lottery established or erected in any other of the United States, by advertising any tickets in any such lottery for sale, or by publishing the scheme of any such lottery, such person or persons shall, for each and every such offence, forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding fifty dollars, nor less than five dollars, at the discretion of the court, one moiety thereof to the use of this commonwealth, and the other moiety to the use of the person who shall inform and complain of the same.

III. Penalty for selling, giving, buying or receiving such tickets.

By statute 1785, c. 24, s. 3, every person who shall sell, give, or otherwise dispose of any such lottery ticket, shall forfeit and pay the sum of fifty pounds for each ticket so sold, given, or disposed of; and every person who shall receive or purchase any such lottery ticket, shall forfeit and pay the sum of twenty pounds, for every ticket so received or purchased.

So by statute 1800, c. 57, s. 2, every person who shall, within this commonwealth, sell, give or otherwise dispose of, any ticket, in any lottery, not authorized by any law of this commonwealth, or of the United States, or who shall receive or purchase any such lottery ticket, as aforesaid, shall forfeit and pay, for each and every offence, the sum of five dollars, for every ticket so sold, given, disposed of, received or purchased, in manner aforesaid. Provided nevertheless, that if any such receiver or purchaser shall first inform or complain against the person or persons who shall have given, sold or disposed of any such ticket, so that he or they shall be convicted thereof, such receiver or purchaser shall not, in such case, be

liable to the penalty aforesaid, but shall be exempted therefrom.

IV. Recovery of money paid for such tickets; and contracts made, in consideration of such tickets, void.

By statute 1800, c. 57, s. 3, any purchaser or holder of any lottery ticket or tickets, which shall have been sold, given or disposed of, contrary to the provisions of the act, shall and may recover the amount which he shall have paid for any such ticket or tickets, of the person or a persons of whom he shall have purchased or received the same, whether the same shall have been drawn a blank or prize, by an action on the case, for money had and received, before any court proper to try the same.

So by the same statute, s. 5, all notes, obligations, contracts and securities, given in consideration of any lottery ticket or tickets, sold contrary to the provisions of this act, shall be null and void.

V. Recovery of penalties.

By statute 1785, c. 24, s. 3, the several forfeitures named in said act, to inure, one moiety to the use of the government and the other moiety to the use of him or them who will sue for the same, by action of debt, in any court of common pleas within this government.

So by statute 1800, c. 57, s. 4, all penalties and forfeitures given or limited by any act of this commonwealth, in whole or in part, to the use of this commonwealth, may be recovered by indictment in any court proper to try the same.

*

TITLE CII.

Per Heath, J.

LIENS.

THERE are two species of liens known to the law,

3 Bos. and Pul. 494, namely, particular liens, and general liens. Particular

and per Kenyon, C. J.

1 Esp. N. P. C. 109.

4 Burr. 2221, cited in Selw. 1161.

Per L. Mansfield, C.J. liens are, where persons claim a right to retain goods in respect of labour or money expended on such goods, and these liens are favoured in law. General liens are claimed in respect of a general balance of account; and these are founded on express agreement, or are raised by implication of law, from the usage of trade, or from the course of dealing between the parties, whence it may be inferred, that the contract in question was made with in reference to their usual course of dealing.

Krutzer v. Wilcox,
2 Burr. 936.
Cowp. 251.

Foxcroft v. Devonshire,

2 Burr. 932.

1 Bl. Rep. 193.

1. Of liens in favour of factors.

2. Of liens in favour of manufacturers.

3. Of liens created by pawns.

4. Of liens in favour of inn-keepers.

5. Of liens in favour of carriers.

6. Of liens in favour of attorneys.

7. Within what limits liens are restrained.
8. How a lien may be destroyed.

I. Of liens in favour of factors.

A factor has a lien upon goods consigned to him, not merely for what is due for those goods, but for the balance of a general account, and for which he may retain them. So he has a lien on the money in the hands of the buyer.

And though, in this case, goods had been consigned to a factor by a trader, and the factor knew that the trader

had been in insolvent circumstances, but he, nevertheless, advanced him money on the credit of the goods it was adjudged, that he was entitled to a lien against them for the money he had advanced, and should hold them against the assignees of the consignor.

II. Of liens in favour of manufacturers.

In the case of manufacturers, the liens which they have against the goods entrusted to them to manufacture, is not a general one, but is confined to the work done to the goods themselves, unless express usage of the trade is proved to the contrary.

But the usage of trade will create a general lien.

III. Of liens created by pawns.

2 Esp. Dig. 342. Cites ex parte Ock1 Atk. 235.

2 Esp. Dig. 343.

Pawning, from the nature of the transaction, creates, Ibid. of itself, a lien.

Ibid. cites!

calf,

2 Vern. 691.
S. C. quot.

Atk. 236.

Where a testator had borrowed a sum of money upon jewels, and afterwards borrowed three several sums, for Demainbray v. Met. each of which he gave his note, without taking any notice Free. Chan. 419. of the jewels; it was determined, that the borrower's executors should not redeem the jewels without paying the money due on the notes: for it must be presumed, that the pawnee trusted to the pledge he had in his hands, by the money being lent subsequent to the pawning, which excludes the presumption of any trust to the person. But if the loan had been prior to the pawning, there had been no lien.

But though the act of pawning creates a lien in favour of the pawnee, yet it cannot give him a greater interest in the thing pawned, than the pawner himself had.

Therefore, where a tenant for life of plate, pawned it to a pawn-broker, and died; it was adjudged, that though the pawn-broker had no notice of the pawner's property, he, nevertheless, could have no lien on the plate, as against him in remainder.

2 Esp. Dig. 344.

Hoare v. Parker, 2 Term Rep. 376.

Pinder et al. v. Shaw et al.

2 Mass. Rep. 399.

Selw. 1162.

So a factor has no authority to pawn goods entrusted to him for sale. And if he do so, the owner may recover them in an action of trover, against the pawnee.

IV. Of liens in favour of inn-keepers.

An inn-keeper has a particular lien on the goods en

2 Esp. Dig. 344. cites trusted to his care; and may detain a horse left with him

Robinson v. Walter,

3 Buls. 268.

1 Rolle's Rep. 449.

York v. Grindstone,
Salk. 388.

2 Esp. Dig. 345. cites Jones v. Pearle,

2 Stra. 557.

till he is paid for his keeping. For as he is, by law, compellable to receive a guest and his horse, so he shall have this remedy. And though, in this case, the horse had been brought to the inn by a stranger, without the owner's knowledge, and was afterwards claimed by the owner, yet it was held, that the inn-keeper might, notwithstanding, keep the horse till paid; for so by pretended ignorance that his horse was sent to an inn, might the owner defraud the inn-keeper, by getting his keeping for nothing.

So that to give this right of retainer, it is not necessary that the owner should be a guest; for merely leaving his horse at an inn gives this right of retainer by the innkeeper, till paid for his keeping.

But this power of retaining is only while the horse remains in the inn-keeper's possession; for if he suffers Warbrook v. Griffin, the horse to be taken away, and the horse is brought again to his inn, he cannot retain him for his former demand.

2 Brownl. 254.

Skinner v. Upshaw,

2 Lord Raym. 752.

Mitchell v. Oldfield, 4 T. R. 123.

V. Of liens in favour of carriers.

So a carrier may detain goods entrusted to him to carry, till he is paid for their carriage.

VI. Of liens in favour of attorneys.

As to general liens, it has been determined, that the attorneys and solicitors of the different courts have a lien on all papers remaining in their hands, and judgments recovered, for their costs.