
    Frederick C. Cotta et al., Respondents, v. Edward T. Carr, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    May, 1899.)
    Lien — Custody of a horse, wagon and harness.
    An agreement under which the defendant was to take care of the plaintiffs’ team, the latter to have the use of it in their business every day, accompanied by proof that besides boarding the horse the defendant occasionally of his own motion washed the wagon and cleaned the harness, affords no basis for a lien upon his part, either by agreement, or by statute as ah artisan for the betterment of personal property; or for the storage of the goods, within sections 70 and 73, art. VI, chap. 418 of the Laws of 1897.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court, third district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiffs.
    John P. Everett, for appellant.
    Smith & Cochrane; for respondents.
   MacLean, J.

The complaint is to recover the possession of personal property.” The answer “ general denial; bailee’s lien as livery-stable keeper.” From the evidence which is not contradictory, it appears that it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant that the latter should take care of a horse, wagon and harness belonging to the plaintiffs, who were to have possession and use of the. horse, wagon and harness every day in their business. Under this agreement the defendant boarded the horse, occasionally washed the wagon and cleaned the harness, though these latter were- not stipulated services. Being in arrears on December 1, 1898,.the plaintiffs were notified by the defendant that they could not remove the horse, wagon and harness from the stable until his charges were paid. Nine days after this notice the plaintiffs made a written demand for the return- of the horse, wagon and harness, which was refused.. These facts and the value of the articles having been shown, the justice rendered judgment that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the possession of the wagon and harness or their value, adjudged to be $142, .and that the defendant had a lien upon the horse for the sum of $60 for the keep of the animal, and was entitled to retain said animal until such indebtedness was paid. From so much of the judgment as awarded the possession of the Value of the wagon and harness to the plaintiffs, comes the present appeal. The defendant failed to establish any lien either by agreement or by statute as an artisan for'the betterment of personal property, or .for storage of the goods,within sections 70 and'73, art. VI, chap. 418, Laws of 1897. The judgment should he affirmed.

Freebmah, P. J., and Levektritt, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondents.  