CHAPTER 2

INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872

2.15 CONTRACT OF BAILMENT AND PLEDGE BAILMENT

[SECTIONS 148 –181]
What is `Bailment`
• When one person delivers some goods to another person under a contract for a
specified purpose and when that specified purposes is accomplished the goods shall be
delivered to the first person, it is known as Bailment

SEC 148. SAYS A "bailment" is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some
purpose, upon a CONTRACT and they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be
returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering
them. The person delivering the goods is called the "bailor." The person to whom they
are delivered is called the " bailee."
On the whole a bailment may be described as a delivery on condition, to which the law
usually attaches an obligation to redeliver the goods, or otherwise deal with them as
directed, when the condition is satisfied ; but there may be, in particular cases, a bailment
without an enforceable obligation .
Where a chattel is delivered by mistake, the intention being to deliver another chattel
either with or without conditions, the legal result, whatever

There is No bailment where whole property is transferred. Obviously no transaction can be

a bailment within the Act which does not satisfy the terms of this section. Accordingly
there is not a bailment if the thing delivered is not to be specifically returned or accounted
for.

1. A delivery of property on a contract for an equivalent in money or in other

commodities (whether like the property delivered or not) is a sale or exchange and
not a bailment, as where farmers deliver grain to a miller to be used by him in his
trade, and are entitled to claim an equal quantity of corn of like quality or its market
price.

2. An agent authorised to receive payment, and bound to hand over to his principal an
equivalent sum, but not necessarily the actual coin or instruments of credit received
by him, is not a bailee.

3. Similarly the delivery of Government promissory notes to a treasury for cancellation

and consolidation into a single note is not a bailment, for there is no contract in such
IIPM

a case that the notes shall be returned or other-wise disposed of according to the
directions of the owner.

Delivery of Possession is an important aspect in bailment but it must be distinguished from

mere custody like a servant or guest using his host goods is not a bailee.

In the case of ULTZEN V. NICOLLS 1894 (QB) The plantiff went to a hotel and the
waiter took is coat without being asked and hung it on the hook and the plantiff rose the
coat was one, the hotel keeper was held to be liable, if the customer has directed him
where and how to hang the coat the judgment can be otherwise.

KALIAPERUMAL PILLAI V.VISHALAKSHMI 1938 in this case the lady asked to

the godsmith to make certain jewels and everyday she used to take the half made jewellery
and lock it in a box in the goldsmith room and keep the key in her possession one’s the
jewels were lost the goldsmith was not to be held liable.

SEC 149. The delivery to the bailee may be made by doing Delivery to bailee anything
which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the intended bailee or of
any person authorised to hold them on his behalf.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BAILMENT
1. Delivery of Goods - it may be express or constructive (implied).

Like delivery of railway receipt amounts to delivery of goods (Morvi Mercantile bank v.
union of India 1965 sc)

2. Delivery upon Contract. and when thepurpose is accomplished the goods shall be
returned to the bailor and when there is a possession without any contract that is
not a bailment in thecase of RAM GULAM V. GOVERNMENT OF UP 1950 the
persons ornaments were stolen and was recovered and put in the police custody nad
were stolen again the plaintiff action state was dismissed
The English law recognizes bailment without contract

And so this view was changed in the former cases that the government falls under the
position of bailee and further said thatthere can be bailment without an enforceable
contract and consent is also not needed for such relationship a finder og goods is also a
bailee ( State of gujrat v. memon mohd.) it was held that moter vehicles were seized by
the state under sea customs act the goods in custody were ruined the state was held to
be responsible.

2
IIPM

3. Return of goods in specie.

Bailment is always made for some purpose andwhen the purpose is accomplished the
goods should be returned t the bailor so the deposit of money to the banker is not an
bailment and the bank is liable to return the same notes and coins
But the post office is a bailee of the articles of the sender ( cit v. p.m. rathod 1959 sc)

KINDS OF BAILMENTS
• Bailment may be classified as follows: -
1. Deposit - Delivery of goods by one man to another to keep for the use of the bailor.
2. Commodatum - Goods lent to friend gratis (free of charge) to be used by him.
2. Hire - Goods lent to the bailee for hire, i.e., in return for payment of money.
4. Pawn or Pledge - Deposit of goods with another by way of security for money
borrowed.
5. Delivery of goods for being transported by the bailee - for reward.
DUTIES OF BAILOR
1. To disclose faults in the goods

SEC150. The bailor is bound to disclose to the bailee faults in the goods bailed, of which
there is a Bailor's duty to disclose faults, and which materially interfere with the goods
bailed, or expose the bailee to extra- ordinary risks ; and, if he does not make such
disclosure, he is responsible for damage arising to the bailee directly from such faults.

If the goods are bailed for hire, the bailor is responsible

Eg. If a person lends his cycle to a friend and if he knows that cycle is without break he
should disclose it and his duty ends there

2. TO TAKE REASONABLE CARE

Sec 151 AND 152 says this thing

The burden of proof under ss. 151 and 152 of the Contract Act has arisen in the words of
Strachey, C. J. : " If the damage caused were such that in the ordinary course of events it
would not happen to goods of the kind in question if used with ordinary prudence, then I
think it would be for the hirer to prove that he had exercised such prudence ; otherwise I
think the owner must give some evidence of negligence ".
Thus where a person hires a horse for riding in a sound condition, and the horse dies the
same day while it is in his custody, it is for the hirer to prove that he had taken such care of
the horse as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, have taken of
his own . Similarly, where goods delivered for safe custody for reward are lost while in the
possession of the bailee, the burden lies on the bailee to prove absence of negligence on
his part
Compare the Transfer of Property Act, s. 76, cl. (a), as to care required
of a mortgagee in possession.
3
IIPM

Bailee's liability for negligence of servants. A bailee's liability extends to damage caused
by the negligence of his servants acting in the course of their employment about the use or
custody of the thing bailed ; but it does not extend to damage caused by the acts or defaults
of third persons which he could not by ordinary diligence have foreseen and prevented, nor
to unauthorised acts of his servants outside the scope of their employment.

IN the case of involuntary bailee there is no duty casted upon the person who has receipt
of something he had not asked for.

NOT TO MAKE UNAUTHORISED USE OF GOODS

Sec 154 goods must be used by the bailee only for the purpose they are bailed and not
otherwise, So if the bailee does this above act there can be termination of bailment under
sec 153.

NOT TO MIX BAILOR'S GOODS WITH HIS OWN sec 155 – 157
The bailee should maintain a separate identity of the bailers goods and should not mis his
own goods if the mixture is made without the consent of bailor the separation charges and
the damages arising will be bear by the bailee.
By the Trusts Act, s. 66, " where the trustee wrong- fully mingles the trust property with
his own, the beneficiary is entitled to a charge on the whole fund for the amount due to
him."

TO RETURN THE GOODS BAILED sec 160 and 165

Ss. 160. It is the duty of the bailee to return, or deliver according to the bailor's directions,
the goods without demand, as soon they were expired, or the purpose for which they were
bailed has been accomplished.
Nothing is said here about the extent of the bailor's remedies if the goods are not helpful.
He can have an action for damages against the bailee, but also he has further equitable
rights. " If the bailee sells the goods bailed, the bailor can in equity follow the proceeds,
and can follow the proceeds wherever they can be distinguished, either being actually
kept separate, or being mixed up with other moneys.

DUTY NOT NOT TO SET UP JUS TERTI SEC 166-167

Sec 166. If the bailer has no title to the goods, and the Bailee in good faith, delivers back
taccording to the directions of, the bailer the bailee is not responsible to the owner in
respect of such delivery.

4
IIPM

Expl. Even if there is a person who has a better title to the goods then that of the bailor,
the bailee may safely return the goods to the bailor and he is not liable to the owner of the
goods.
In the case of JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT OIL MILLS V. UNION OF INDIA 1976
The oil was consigned with the railways it reached the destination the sender instruteed the
railway to bring it back but the food inspector found it to be adulterated and and destroyed
it under the order of the court,
The raiway was not held to be liable as the subject was taken by the authority of law

As Sec 165 Where The Goods Have Been Bailed By Several Joint Owners The Bailee
May Deliver Them To One Joint Owners Without The Consent Of All In Absence Of Any
Agreemnent To The Contrary

TO RETURN ANY INCREASE TO THE GOODS BAILED sec163

But in the case of shares and securities if they are pledged with the bank and they received
bonus shares or dividends the bank can not be compelled to handover such increment
unless the pledge securities are redeemed ( STANDARD CHARTERED BANK V.
CUSTODIAN)

Finder of goods sec 168 and 169

Ss. 168. The finder of goods has no right to sue the owner for trouble and expense
voluntarily incurred by him to preserve the goods and to find out the owner ; but he may
retain the goods against the owner until he receives such compensation ; and, where the
owner has offered a specific reward for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue
for such reward, and may retain the goods until he receives it.

By the Common Law a person who finds lost goods and holds them with the intention of
saving them for the true owner is certainly not a trespasser, and has no higher duties than a
bailee ; but, the service being rendered without request from the owner, he does not seem
entitled to any remuneration unless a specific reward has been offered for the return of the
goods, and the offer has come to his knowledge; and if he cannot claim compensation
there is no ground on which he can retain the goods.
The rule of the present section appears to be intended to satisfy natural justice. Presumably
the compensation, if no specific reward has been offered and the parties cannot agree, is to
be what the Court considers reasonable.

Sec 169
When the thing is in danger of perishing or of losing the greater part of its value,
5
IIPM

(2) When the lawful charges of the finder, in respect of the thing found, amount to two-
thirds of its value.

This section is taken from the New York Draft Civil Code, s. 943, where it is stated to be a
new provision. It does not appear to have come before the Indian Courts. At common law
sale by the finder would be a conversion.

RIGHTS OF BAILEE
1. The bailee can sue bailor for
(a) claiming compensation for damage resulting from non-disdosure of faults in the
goods;
(b) for breach of warranty as to title and the damage resulting therefrom; and
(c) for extraordinary expenses.
2. Lien
2. Rights against wrongful deprivation of injury to goods
RIGHTS OF THE BAILOR
1. The bailor can enforce by suit all duties or liabilities of the bailee.
2. In case of gratuitous bailment (i.e., bailment without reward), the bailor can demand
their return whenever he pleases, even though he lent it for a specified time or purpose.
TERMINATION OF BAILMENT
1. On the expiry of the stipulated period.
2. On the accomplishment of the specified purpose.
2. By bailee's act inconsistent with conditions.

FINDER OF LOST GOODS

• Finding is not keeping. A finder of lost goods is treated as the bailee of the goods found
as such and is charged with the responsibilities of a bailee, besides the responsibility of
exercising reasonable efforts in finding the real owner.
• However, he enjoys certain rights also. His rights are summed up hereunder
1. Right to retain the goods
2. Right to Sell -the finder may sell it:
(1) when the thing is in danger of perishing or of losing the greater part of its value;
(2) when the lawful charges of the finder in respect of the thing found, amount to
2/3rd of its value.2

CHAPTEK IX.
OF BAILMENT.
DUTY OF BAILEE. 487

6
IIPM

(1)
170. Where the bailee has, in accordance with the
Bailee's par- purpose of the bailment, rendered any service
ticuiariien. involving the exercise of labour or skill in

respect of the goods bailed, he has, in the absence of a con-

tract to the contrary, a right to retain such goods until he
receives due remuneration for the services he has rendered in
respect of them.

Illustrations.

(a) A delivers a rough diamond to B., a jeweller, to be cut and

polished, which is accordingly done. B. is entitled to retain the stone
till he is paid for the services he has rendered.

(b) A. gives cloth to B., a tailor, to make into a coat. B. promises

A. to deliver the coat as soon as it is finished, and to give A. three
months' credit for the price. B. is not entitled to retain the coat until
he is paid.

Principle of Bailee's Lien. This section expresses the " common

law principle that if a man has an article delivered to him, on the im-
provement of which he has to bestow trouble and expense, he has a right to
detain it until his demand is paid " (b).

" Where a bailee has expended his labour and skill in the improvement
of a chattel delivered to him, he has a lien for his charge in that respect.
Thus the artificer to whom the goods are delivered for the purpose of being
worked up into form, or the farrier by whose skill the animal is cured of a
disease, or the horse-breaker by whose skill he is rendered manageable, have
liens on the chattels in respect of their charges " (c). An agister, who merely
takes in an animal to feed it, is not entitled to a lien, as not coming within

(b) Best, C.J., in Bevan v. Waters (1838) 4 M. & W. 270, 283, 51 B. R. 568,
(1828) 3 Car. & P. 520, 33 R. R. 692. 678.

(c) Parke, B., iu Scarfe v. Morgan

7
IIPM

504 THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT.

g s this principle, for he does not confer any additional value on the thing

170, 171. entrusted to him (e?).

Further, where a person does work on goods delivered to him under

an' entire contract, the fact that the deliveries are at different times does
not affect his right to a lien on all goods dealt with under that contract (e).
It has accordingly been held by the High Court of Calcutta that where jute
was delivered to a pressing company from time to time to be baled, but all
under one contract, the lien attached to all such goods (/).

Contract to the contrary. Where there is an express contract to do

certain work for a specified sum of money, there is no room for a quantum
meruit claim. A person, therefore, to whom an organ is delivered for
repairs for a certain sum is not entitled to retain it as security for a sum
of money claimed not under the contract, but for work done (<?). While the
special contract is in force there is no other "due remuneration" than the
sum expressly contracted for.

171. Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High

Court and policy-brokers may, in the absence

General lien of

bankers, factors, of a contract to the contrary, retain, as a

wharfingers, - - . ,

attorneys, and security for a general balance of account, any

goods bailed to them ; but no other persons
have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods
bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that
effect.

General as distinct from Particular Lien : Bankers. This " general

lien," as it is called by way of distinction from the " particular lien " of an
artificer for work done by him on the particular goods in question (h\ was
originally established in England, as regards bankers and others, as a

8
IIPM

(d) Jackson v. Cummins (1839) 5 M. & (e) Chase v. Westmore (1816) 15 M. &

W. 342, 52 R. E. 737 ; Chanda Mai v. S. 180, 17 R. R. 301.

Gonda Singh (1885) Punj. Rec. no. 60. (/) Miller v. Nasmijth's Patent Press

In England an innkeeper has a lien on Co., Ltd. (1882) 8 Cal. 312.

goods brought into the inn by a guest ; (y) Skinner v. Jager (1883) 6 All. 139.

this is on the distinct ground that he is (#) "A general lien is the right to

bound by law to accept them. See 1 Sm. retain the property of another for a

L. C. 129. As to the peculiar position of general balance of accounts ; but a

a distrainor at common law, who does not particular lien is a right to retain it only

acquire possession at all, see Turner v. for a charge on account of labour employed

Ford (1846) 15 M. & W. 212, 71 R. R. or expenses bestowed upon the identical

624 ; Pollock and Wright on Possession, property detained " : Kent, Comm, ii,

82 ? 202, 634,

GENERAL LIEN OF BANKERS, FACTORS, ETC. 505

proved usage of trade; but, once being so established, it became part of S. 171.

the law merchant, and as much to be judicially noticed as any other

part of the law (i). The right does not extend to securities or other

valuable property deposited with a banker merely for safe custody or for a

special purpose, and this on the ground that the limited and special

purpose must be deemed to imply a contract to the contrary, which seems

9
IIPM

to account for the absence from the text of any words expressly making

an exception in such cases. Where a member of a firm deposited a lease

to secure a particular advance to the firm, it was held that the banker had

no lien for the general balance due from the firm(&). Nor does the lien of

a banker extend to title-deeds casually left at the bank after a refusal by

him to advance money on them (I) ; and where a deed, dealing with two

distinct properties, was deposited with a memorandum charging only one

of the properties with a specified sum and also the general balance due to

the banker, it was held that he had no lien on the other property comprised

in the deed (m).

But, in order that the general lien may be excluded by a special agree-
ment, whether express or implied from the circumstances, the agreement
must be clearly inconsistent with the existence of such a lien (n). Accord-
ingly a deposit of valuables with a banker to secure debts of a customer
due to him as banker is subject to the banker's lien for the customer's
general debts to him unless the customer can prove an agreement to give
up his general lien (o). Such an agreement maybe evidenced, for example,
by a memorandum of charge declaring that the deposit is to secure over-
drafts not exceeding a named amount. This excludes the banker's lien for
any greater amount (p). As to boxes or sealed parcels deposited with a
banker for custody without informing him of their contents or making them
accessible to him, he has no lien on them even if the customer is in the
habit of leaving other securities with the banker against advances (q).

A banker's lien, when it is not excluded by special contract, express

or implied, extends to all bills, cheques, and money entrusted or paid to
him, and all securities deposited with him, in his character as a banker (r).

(i) Brandao v. Barnett (1846) 12 01. & & F. 787, 69 R. R. 204; Agra Bank's

F. 787, 69 R. R. 204, per Lord Campbell Claim (1872) L. R. 8 Ch. 41.

10
IIPM

and Lord Lyndhurst. (/>) Kunlian v. Bank of Madras (1895)

(k) Wolstenholm v. Sheffield Bank (1886) 19 Mad. 234.

54 L. T. 746. (V) Re Bowes (1886) 33 Ch. D. 586.

(T) Lucas v. Dorrein (1817) 7 Taunt. (q~) Lease v. Martin (187H) L. R.17 Eq.

278, 18 R. R. 480. 224.

(m) Wylde v. Radford (1864) 33 L. J. (r) Misa v. Currie (1876) 1 App. Cas.

Ch. 51. 554 ; London Chartered Bank v. White

(w) Brandao v. Barnett (1846) 12 Cl. (1879) 4 App. Cas. 413.

506 THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT.

S. 171. In the case of money and negotiable securities, the lien is not prejudiced
by any defect in the title of the customer, nor by equities of third persons,
provided the banker acts honestly and without notice of any defect of
title (). But there is no lien for advances made after notice of a defect in
the customer's title (<), or after notice of an assignment of the moneys or
securities in the banker's hands (u). And in the case of securities which
are not negotiable, the lien is confined to the rights of the customer therein,
and is subject to all equities affecting them at the time when the lien
attaches (v).

Factor. A factor " is an agent entrusted with the possession of goods

for the purpose of sale " (w). He may buy and sell either in his own name
or in that of the principal, though " he usually sells in his own name,
without disclosing that of his principal." The factor is said to have a
" special property " in the goods consigned to him (#). Private instruc-
tions to sell only in the principal's name or within fixed limits of price
will not make him the less a factor or deprive him of his claim to lien(y).
The secretaries and treasurers of a company, who have made advances to
the company and incurred expenses and made disbursements on behalf of
the company in the conduct of its business, are not factors, and are not
entitled to any lien on the property of the company in their possession (z).
Similarly a banian in Calcutta has no lien for a general balance of account
11
IIPM

in the absence of an express contract to that effect (a). Though advances

made by a factor for sale confer a lien on him, they do not confer upon
him the right to sell invito domino. To claim such a right there must
be an agreement either express or to be inferred from the general
course of business or from the circumstances attending the particular
consignment (b).

Conformably to the principle governing all general liens, a factor's

lien, where it exists, applies only to debts due to the factor in that character;

() Bank of New SoutJi Wales v. (1883) 25 Ch. Div. 31, 37.

Goulburn Suiter Factory [1902] A. C. (^) Baring v. Cowle (1818) 2 B. & Aid.

543 ; Misa v. Currie, supra; Brandao v. 137, 20 R. R. 383, per Abbott, C.J., 2 B.

Burnett (1846) 12 01. & F. 787, 69 R. R. & Aid. at p. 143, Holroyd, J., at p. 148.
204. (jO Stevens v. Bitter (1883) 25 Ch. Div.

(t) Solomons v. Bank of England (1810) 31,37.

13 East, 135, 12 R. R. 341 ; Locke v. (z) In re Bombay Saw Mills Co. (1889)

Prescott (1863) 32 Beav. 261. 13 Bom. 314, 320.

(u) Jeffreys v. Agra Bank (1866) L. R. (a) Peacock v. Baijnath (1891) 18 Cal.

2 Eq. 674. 573, L. R. 18 Ind. Ap. 78.

(v) London and County Bank v. (&) Ja/erbkoy v. Cliarlesworth (1893)

Ratcliffe (1881) 6 App. Cas. 722. 17 Bom. 520, 542.

(M>) Cotton, L.J., in Stevens v. Biller

FACTOR'S AND WHARFINGER'S LIEN. 507

it does not extend to " debts which arise prior to the time at which his S. 171.
character of factor commences " (c). But it extends to all his lawful claims
against the principal as a factor, whether for advances, or remuneration,
or for losses or liabilities incurred in the course of his employment in
12
IIPM

respect of which he is entitled to be indemnified (d).

In order that the lien may attach, the goods must come into the
possession, actual or constructive (e\ of the factor. If, for instance, a
factor accepts bills on the faith of a consignment of goods which, by reason
of the bankruptcy of the principal, are never received by him, he has no
lien on the goods as against the principal's trustee in bankruptcy (/). Nor
does the lien extend to goods acquired otherwise than in his character of a
factor (g), or entrusted to him with express directions or for a special
purpose inconsistent with the existence of a general lien (h). Instructions
to provide, out of the proceeds of a consignment, for a bill of exchange
drawn by the principal on the factor in favour of a third person will
exclude the factor's general lien unless he pays the bill of exchange (i).

Wharfingers. The lien of a wharfinger is, generally speaking, only

effective as regards claims against the owner of the goods. He has no lien
as against a buyer for charges becoming due from the seller after he has
had notice of the sale (I) ; and where it was agreed between a buyer and
seller, before the goods sold came to the hands of the wharfinger, that the
contract of sale should be rescinded, it was held that he had no lien as
against the seller for a general balance due to him from the buyer (m).

Owners of a screwhouse who have a wharf as an accessory are

not wharfingers (k). ^

(c) Houghton v. Matthews (1803) 3 B. held that his general lien did not extend

& P. 485, 488, 7 K. R. 815, 816. to the policy of insurance).

(W) Hammonds v. Barclay (1802) 2 (h~) Spalding v. Ending (1843) 6 Beav.

East, 227, where the principal died during 376, 63 R. R. 120 (bill of lading pledged

the currency of certain bills accepted by to factor for specific amount) ; Burn v.

the factor on the faith of a consignment Brown (1817) 2 Stark. 272, 19 R. R. 719

of goods; Drinltwater v. Goodwin (1775) (certificate of ship's registry entrusted to

Cowp. 251 (liability incurred by the factor factor for the purpose of paying duties at

as surety for the principal). custom-house).

13
IIPM

(fl) liryam v. Nix (1839) 4 M. & W. (/) Frith v. Forbes (1862) 4 De G. F.

775, 51 R. R. 829. And see Lutscher v. & J. 409 ; Calvin v. Hartwell (1837) 5 Cl.

Comptoir d'Escompte ( 876) 1 Q. B. D. & F. 484.

709. (It) Miller v. Nasmyth's Patent Press

(/) Kinloch v. Craig (1790) 3 T. ~R. Co. (1882) 8 Cal. 312.

119, 783, 1 R. R. 664. (Z) Barry v. Longmore (1840) 12 A. &

(g) Dixon v. Stansfeld (1850) 10 C. B. E. 639, 54 R. R. 654.

398, 84 R. R. 631 (where a factor insured (m) Richardson v. Goss (1802) 3 B.& P.

a ship on the principal's behalf, it was 119, 6 R. R. 727.

508 THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT.

g. 171. Attorneys. Tn England a solicitor has alien on his client's documents

(not only deeds and law papers) (n) entrusted to him as solicitor (o) " for all
taxable costs, charges, and expenses incurred by him as solicitor for his
client ; but he has no lien for ordinary advances or loans. His taxable
costs, charges, and expenses would include money payments which he
makes for his client in the course of his business, such as counsel's fees " (p).
Taking a special security from the client is not necessarily an abandon-
ment of the general lien, but it will be so if the circumstances are
inconsistent with the continuance of the lien, and if the solicitor does
not expressly reserve his lien an intention to waive it will generally
be inferred, having regard to the solicitor's duty to give his client full
information (q).

A solicitor who is discharged by his client holds the papers entrusted

to him subject to his lieu for costs ; -and the lieu extends also to translations
of documents made by the Court's translator at his expense (?). If, how-
ever, a solicitor discharges himself (s), he is not, according to English law,
entitled to a lien, and the same law applies in India. S. 1 saves usages
14
IIPM

and customs of trade not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and
the usage of trade of attorneys sanctioned by English law is not inconsistent
with this section. Applying this reasoning, it was held by the Calcutta
High Court chat a dissolution of a firm of solicitors operates as a discharge
of the client who employs them, and the attorneys are not entitled to retain
the papers until their costs are paid (t).

The kinds of lien dealt with in this Act are as follows :

(1) Lien of unpaid vendor of goods (s. 95, p. 385, above) ;

(2) Lien of finder of goods (s. 168, p. 502, above) ;

(3) Particular lien of bailees (s. 170, p. 503, above);

(n) E.g., cheques : General Share Trust (ff) 2b. at pp. 597, 601 ; Re Douglas

Co. v. Cliapman (1876) 1 C. P. D. 771. Norman % Co. [1898] 1 Ch. 199. The

(0) Sheffield v. Eden (1878) 10 Ch. leading earlier authorities are Cowell v.

Div. 291 (solicitor mortgagee has no lien Simpson (1809) 16 Ves. 275, 10 R. R. 181,

on mortgage deed for costs of mortgage ; and Stevenson v. Blakelock (1813) 1 M. &

here the deed is not the client's property S. 535, 14 R. R. 525.

at all) ; Champernown v. Scott (1821) 6 () Bai Kesserbai v. yrranji (1880)

Madd. 92, 22 R. R. 248, 13 Enc. Laws of 4 Bom. 353.

Engl. 2d ed. 494, s.i: Solicitor, which see (s) An attorney who declines to act

for details of English practice on the further for a client unless costs already

subject. incurred are paid discharges himself :

(p) Lindley, L.J., Re Taylor, Stileman, Basanta Kuinar v. Kusum Kumar (1902)

and Underwood [1891J 1 Ch. 590, 596 ; 4 C. W. N. 767 ; Atool Chandra Mukerjee

" all such claims against the client as the v. Shoshee Bhusan (1904) 6 C. W. N, 215.
15
IIPM

taxing master has to consider," per (0 Re McCorkindale (1880) 6 Cal. 1,

Kay, L.J., at p. 599. following Re Moss (1866) L. R. 2 Eq. 345.

16