Understanding and Comparing
Illinois and Indiana's Liverymen's Liens
By Peter Sacopulos, Esq.
As horse owners, whether you board horses or are in the boarding or breeding business, it is important to understand the basic mechanics of a liveryman’s lien. Interestingly, the statutes providing for and governing these liens in the state of Indiana and the state of Illinois are distinctly different in several key aspects.
There are three primary differences between liveryman liens in Illinois and liveryman liens in Indiana. Those differences are: (1) in Indiana the scope of the animal species subject to the lien is broader, encompassing not only horses (as in Illinois), but also any other livestock; (2) in Indiana the scope of services subject to the lien is broader, encompassing contracts for solely animal feeding (agister liens), as well as boarding; and (3) in Illinois the property which the lien encumbers encompasses not only animal(s) but also associated carriages and harnesses left with the liveryman’s stable.
There is certainly no abundance of court cases or trial decisions construing these states’ liveryman’s liens statutes and what court decisions do exist are often a century old. The scope and subject of these animal boarding liens is best understood by examining the plain language of the statutes themselves.
Livery is defined as “the boarding and care of horses for a fee.” In the state of Illinois, since 1874, persons who board horses for pay have enjoyed a statutory lien that provides for a lien upon the horses and selected accouterments for the unpaid balance of care charges incurred. Specifically, Illinois’ liveryman’s lien statute states:
Stable keepers and any person shall have a lien upon the horses, carriages and harness kept by them for the proper charges due for the keeping thereof and expenses bestowed thereon at the request of the owner, or the person having the possession thereof. (770 ILCS 40/49.)
Significantly, the Illinois statute applies not just to liveryman stable keepers, but “. . . to any persons . . .” who board horses for pay. Also, it is important to note, that the Illinois lien encumbers not only the horses boarded, but any associated “. . .carriages and harnesses. . .” in the possession of the livery. Finally, and also significantly, an agent of the horse owner in possession of the animal(s) may validly board with a livery, thereby triggering the statutory liveryman’s lien.
Several Illinois Court decisions fill in detail as to the mechanics of how the Illinois liveryman’s statute is to be applied. First, a liveryman’s lien is lower in priority than a chattel mortgage recorded on the animal prior to the rendering of the livery services. However, that general rule is reversed where the mortgagee, the one purchasing or buying a horse or animal, with knowledge, allows the mortgagor, the one selling a horse or animal to engage the services of a livery. In those cases, the liveryman’s lien is superior in priority to the prior recorded mortgage. As far back as 1914, the law in Illinois has been that where the mortgagee of horses, harness and carriages knew that the mortgagor was keeping the horses in livery stables and made no objection, the horses were kept there with the mortgagee’s implied consent, and liveryman’s statutory lien was superior in priority to the prior mortgagee.
It is also important to note that under the liveryman’s law in the state of Illinois, a liveryman’s lien arises only upon provision of the pay-for care and boarding, not when the payment is first due from the owner. Therefore, if a horse owner surreptitiously removes boarded animals from the stable, after care services have been rendered but prior to payment of the fees incurred, the lien is in force and the horse owner is guilty of larceny.
The parallel liveryman’s lien statute under Indiana law is broader in scope. The law in Indiana seems to encompass agister services as well as livery. Agister is defined as “. . . one who takes and pastures animals for a fee...” Indiana’s liveryman’s lien statute states:
The keeper of a livery stable or a person engaged in keeping horses, cattle, hogs, and/or livestock: (1) has a lien upon the livestock for the feed and care bestowed by the keeper upon the livestock; and (2) has the same rights and remedies as are provided for those persons having, before July 24, 1853, by law, a lien under I.C. 32-33-9.
Note that livery stable keepers and “. . .any person engaged in feeding. . .” livestock have a lien on such livestock for the service fee accrued. As such, the Indiana liveryman’s lien statute is much broader in scope than the Illinois equivalent, applying to any livestock, not just horses, and encompasses mere feeding services as well as traditional livery (boarding) expenses.
Additionally, it is important to note that liveryman’s liens in Indiana are purely statutory in nature and that the livery’s possession of the animal subject to the lien is ordinarily necessary for the enforcement of the lien. Therefore, as a general rule, if the livery loses or gives up control of the animal the lien too is lost. However, one exception to the general rule is that a liveryman’s lien is not lost or waived where the owner, without the liveryman’s knowledge or permission, removes the boarded animal from the stable. This exception, which dates back to a case decided by the Indiana Courts in 1891, states that a lien is not lost or waived by a stable owner when the owners take the horse from the stable, where the stable keeper has no knowledge or reason to believe that the animal would not be returned as usual when last taken out.
Finally, the law in Indiana regarding liveryman’s liens is clear that such a lien is personal to the keeper of the animal and cannot validly be assigned to a third party. The ability to assign such a lien under Illinois law is far less clear. Therefore, at least in Indiana, a livery could not sell, trade or assign a lien against a horse for value.
The race
horse industry, both in Illinois and Indiana, has suffered from
the national and global economic downturn. The economy has, in
part, resulted in more disputes over board bills and related
expenses. In many cases the remedy for those providing the care
and services lies in pursuing and perfecting a valid liveryman’s
lien. Horseman in the states of Illinois and Indiana are likely
to become far more familiar with the liveryman lien in seasons
to come. 
Peter Sacopulos owns and operates Green Gables Stud, Clay County, Ind., with his wife, Melony. Peter and Melony’s daughters, Ali and Olivia, assist in the business. In addition, Peter Sacopulos is an attorney practicing law in Terre Haute, Ind. with the firm of Sacopulos, Johnson & Sacopulos. Representing clients with equine legal issues is a growing part of his practice.