Yearsley v. Gray

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Yearsley v. Gray

21 A. 318, 140 Pa. 238, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 834

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 23, 1891

DocketNo. 10

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 21 A. 318 (Yearsley v. Gray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yearsley v. Gray, 21 A. 318, 140 Pa. 238, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 834 (Pa. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

It is a well-settled rule of law that an agister is not bound to restore a horse which he has taken to pasture, until his compensation is paid or tendered: Megee v. Beirne, 39 Pa. 50; Mathias v. Sellers, 86 Pa. 486. This is because the agister has a common-law lien for its keep. And it is equally well settled that, where there is an entire contract for the keep of a number of horses or other animals, the agister has a lien on them all, not only for their proportionate part of the sum due for the keep of all, but for the entire amount due upon all the animals embraced in the contract: Young v. Kimball, 23 Pa. 193; Hensel v. Noble, 95 Pa. 345.

In this case, the defendant had taken a number of plaintiffs’ horses and cows to pasture, for a compensation agreed upon. The plaintiffs attempted to take away one of the horses without paying or offering to pay for its keep. The defendant denied their right to do so, and the plaintiffs brought replevin for the horse. Their contention was that the animals which were left were more than adequate to secure the unpaid bill. This may be so, but the defendant had a right to all the security in his hands, and this right could not be taken from him at the will of the plaintiffs. If, in the opinion of the latter, the defendant had more security than was necessary, the obvious remedy was to pay for their cattle and take them away. We know of no case in which a debtor can require his creditor to give up a portion of his security without payment of the debt.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

It is a well-settled rule of law that an agister is not bound to restore a horse which he has taken to pasture, until his compensation is paid or tendered: Megee v. Beirne, 39 Pa. 50; Mathias v. Sellers, 86 Pa. 486. This is because the agister has a common-law lien for its keep. And it is equally well settled that, where there is an entire contract for the keep of a number of horses or other animals, the agister has a lien on them all, not only for their proportionate part of the sum due for the keep of all, but for the entire amount due upon all the animals embraced in the contract: Young v. Kimball, 23 Pa. 193; Hensel v. Noble, 95 Pa. 345.

In this case, the defendant had taken a number of plaintiffs’ horses and cows to pasture, for a compensation agreed upon. The plaintiffs attempted to take away one of the horses without paying or offering to pay for its keep. The defendant denied their right to do so, and the plaintiffs brought replevin for the horse. Their contention was that the animals which were left were more than adequate to secure the unpaid bill. This may be so, but the defendant had a right to all the security in his hands, and this right could not be taken from him at the will of the plaintiffs. If, in the opinion of the latter, the defendant had more security than was necessary, the obvious remedy was to pay for their cattle and take them away. We know of no case in which a debtor can require his creditor to give up a portion of his security without payment of the debt.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A. 318, 140 Pa. 238, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yearsley-v-gray-pa-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack