CHAPTER 12.

LIEN OF CARRIER OF PASSENGERS.

475. Lien and enforcement.

475. Lien and Enforcement.1

A common carrier has a lien upon the luggage of a passenger for the payment of such fare as he is entitled to from him. This lien is regulated by the general provisions of law applicable to liens.2

1 Civil Code, section 2191, as enacted 1872.

2 Regulated by General Law of Liens.-The code language is: "by the title on liens." This title of the code concerns most of the subjects treated in sections 1-22, 81-89, 186-384, and 434-476 of this book.

A similar provision was interpreted in Stewart v. Naud, 125 Cal. 596, 599, 600, 58 Pac. 186 (see section 466, above), to mean that the sale must be conducted as in case of a sale of pledged property. But, as in case of the lien of a carrier on the luggage of his passenger, the passenger may be wholly unknown to the lienor, the provision that actual notice must be given to the owner of the pledged property before the sale can be made would be inapplicable.

(717)

CHAPTER 13.

SHERIFF'S LIEN.

476. Who lienor.

476.

Who Lienor.

An officer who levies an attachment or execution upon movable property acquires a special lien, dependent on possession, upon such property, which authorizes him to hold it until the process is discharged or satisfied, or a judicial sale of the property is had.1

1 See Civil Code, section 3057, as enacted 1872.

(718)

CHAPTER 14.

LIENS AGAINST TRESPASSING

ANI

MALS.1

Merely an Outline of the Statutes Creating These Liens is Presented in This Chapter.

477. Alpine, Colusa, El Dorado (part), Glenn, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Merced, Orange, Riverside (part), Sacramento, San Bernardino (part), San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Solano, Tehama (part).

478. Yolo.

479.

480.

Stanislaus.

Riverside (part), San Diego.

481. San Bernardino (part), Yuba (part).

1 Political Code, section 19: "Nothing in either of the four codes affects any of the provisions of the following statutes, but such statutes are recognized as continuing in force, notwithstanding the provisions of the codes, except so far as they have been repealed or affected by subsequent laws: . . 23. All acts in relation to lawful fences, estrays, and the trespassing of animals upon private property."

In 1901 the legislature passed "an act relating to estrays, providing for taking them up, and giving a lien on them for all damages, costs, and expenses incurred by reason of taking them up, and repealing all other acts and parts of acts now in force relating to estrays": Stats. 1901, p. 603, c. 197. Sections 9 and 10 provided that all acts and parts of acts relat

482. Marin, Mono (part).

483. Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, Tulare, Ventura.

484. Butte (part), Calaveras (part).

485.

Alameda, Contra Costa, Placer (part), San Francisco, San Mateo.

486. Santa Clara, Santa Cruz.

487. Placer (part), Shasta, Tehama (part), Yuba (part)-inclosed lands.

ing to estrays, except as to poundkeepers, were repealed by it. This law might at first sight seem to repeal the laws as to trespassing animals, but such probably is not its effect, because from the earliest times the legislature has distinguished between laws concerning estrays and laws concerning trespassing animals, or "the protection of agriculture,' as they have often been termed. Thus, in Statutes of 1863, page 590, chapter 396, relating to estrays in Napa county, it was expressly provided by section 10 that nothing therein contained should be held to affect the operation of the act conferring a lien against trespassing hogs: See section 488, below. Moreover, the terms "trespassing animal" and "estray" are by no means synonymous; for an estray is an animal (1) wandering at large uncontrolled, (2) during a considerable space of time, (3) whose owner is unknown, while a trespassing animal may merely have temporarily escaped from a known owner, or been purposely driven upon the land where it was distrained. Thus the laws concerning trespassing animals and the protection of agriculture doubtless are not repealed by the above act.

Rule of Construction.-In Trumpler v. Bemerly, 39 Cal. 490, the court says, referring to Statutes of 1863, page 697, chapter 425: "This statute, as all other pre

477. Alpine, Colusa, El Dorado (part), Glenn, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Merced, Orange, Riverside (part), Sacramento, San Bernardino (part), San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Solano, Tehama (part).2

Stats. 1877-78, p. 176, c. 136, in effect March 7, 1878. Stats. 1877-78, p. 878, c. 556, in effect Maren 30, 1878.

The owner or person lawfully in possession of land may take up and safely keep for two days, at the expense of the owner, any animal found scribing modes by which a party may be devested of his property without his consent, must be strictly construed; and a party claiming to have acquired a right and title to property by virtue of its provisions as against the original owner, must affirmatively allege and prove that the mode prescribed by the statute for the acquisition of such title has, in every particular, been strictly followed."

As, however, the chief object of this statute is remedial, it seems that under section 4 of the codes this rule would be changed, and that these statutes should receive a liberal construction "with a view to effect [their] objects and to promote justice."

2 Former enactments which have been superseded: Alpine.-Hog act as applying to that portion of Alpine county formed out of El Dorado county (see section 488, below).

Colusa, Glenn.-Stats. 1871-72, p. 685, c. 458, amended 1873-74, p. 760, c. 525, except as to turkeys (section 490, below); Stats. 1859, p. 279, c. 266, sec. 2, relating to the distraint of certain animals when breaking into inclosures. Hog act, section 488, below.

El Dorado (part).-Stats. 1875-76, p. 356, c. 269, relating to the distraint of trespassing animals in a Liens-46