Voluntarily surrenders his possession, he loses his lien,

even though he may subsequently repossess himself of the

thing in question — vide Sweet v. Py^in (1800), 1 East. 4,

Hartley v. Hitchcock (1816), 1 Stark, 408, and Forth v.

Simpson (1849), 13 Q. B. 680.

(6) The claim must be consistent with the terms upon

which the possession was obtained ; thus, a factor's lien for

his general account only extends to such things as have

come into his possession qua factor — vide Drinhiuater v.

Goodwin (1775), 1 Cowp. 251, and Dixon v. Stansfield

(1850), 10 C. B. 398.

A solicitor only has a lien on such papers and deeds

of his client as have come into his possession qua solicitor

— vide Stevenson v. Blakelock (1813), 1 M. & S. 535.

(c) A person may derive a right to a lien from the acts

of the servants or agents of the owner of the thing in

question, provided they are acting with his authority or

within the ordinary scope of their employment — vide

Hussey v. Christie (1808), 9 East. 433.

(d) The right to a lien may be lost either by express or

Implied waiver ; thus, though the fact of taking security

for a debt will not of itself necessarily destroy the right

of lien, still the claimant of a lien may lose his lien by

taking security under such circumstances as to amount to

a waiver of that lien.

Angus v. McLachlan (1883), 23 Ch. D. 330 ; here Kay,

L.J., said ; " As I understand the law, it is not the mere

taking of a security which destroys the lien; but there

must be something in the facts of the case, or in the nature

of the security taken, which is inconsistent with the

existence of the lien, and which is destructive of it." This

76 The law of agency.

case was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in In re Taylor

& Comxxmy (1891), 1 Ch. 590. C. A.

(e) As a general rule, a lien upon a thing does not

confer any right to sell the thing — vide Martindale v. Smith

(1841), 1 Q. B. 389, The Thames Iron Shii^ Building

Company v. Patent Derrick Company (1860), L. J. Ch.

714, Mulliner V. Florence (1878), 3 q. B. D. 484. C. A.,

and Page v. Coiuasgee (1866), L. R. 1 P. C. 127. In

the last-mentioned case, Lord Chelmsford, delivering the

judgment of the Privy Council, said ; " Martindale v. Smith

(1841), 1 Q. B. 389, and other cases have determined that

where there is an agreement to purchase property to be

paid for at a future time, and the money is not paid at the

day, the property remaining in the possession of the vendor,

he has no right to sell it, and if he does, the purchaser

may maintain trover against him. There may be cases

where the vendor might sell without rendering himself

liable to an action, as where goods are left in the possession

of the vendor, and the purchaser will not remove them

and pay the price after receiving express notice from the

Vendor that, if he fail to do so, the goods will be re-sold."

There seem to be one or two exceptions at Common

Law to the rule that lien confers no right of sale. Thus,