The article
wrought upon
may be detained
by the
workman until
he be paid
his hire;
and he is not
refponfible,
in cafe of accidents,
during
fuch'de*
tendon.
I f the work
b t of a nature
not to
that the work is completely finifhed by fetting up the bricks,, the col-
ledting them together and flacking them being an extra bufinefs, in
the fame manner as removal from one place to another; and accord-
ingly people take bricks, to build with, from the place where they
have been let up, without waiting for the fetching of them. It is
otherwife before they are fet up, fmce the clay is not then hardened:
and it is alfo otherwife with bread, as the ufe of that cannot be obtained
until it be drawn out of the oven.
E v e r y artificer whofe work produces a vifible effedt upon an article
(fuch as a dyer or fu ller) is at liberty to detain fuch article until ■
receive his hire'; becaufe in this inflance the fubjedl of the contraft ts
defcriptively exiflent in the article, whence he is allowed to detain it
with a view to receiving the return for fuch fubjedl, in-the fame manner
as if it were an article of fake ;— in other words, as the feller is allowed
to detain the article fold until he receive the price, fo alfo m trie
-GUC in queftion.— If, therefore, a dyer or fuller detain cloth for. the
purpofe of being paid his'hire, and the cloth penfh in his hands, fife is
not refponfible, according to Haneefa, inafmuch as he has not tranf-
orefled in fo detaining it, the cloth remaining as a depotit with him
after detention, in the fame manner as before.— He is not, however,
in this cafe entitled to any hire, becaufe of the fubjedl of the contrad
perifhing before delivery.— T h e two difciples hold that the cloth is a
-fubjea of refponfibility before detention, and fo alfo after detention;
but that the owner of the cloth has it at his option either to take a cor.:-
penfation for the value of the cloth as it flood before the fulling or dy-
;no-5_in which cafe the workman is not entitled to any pay, or to
take a compenfation for the value of it as it flood after the work,—in
•which cafe the workman is entitled to bis hire. This fhall be more
•fully explained hereafter.
A w o r km a n , the effedt of whofe labour is not vifibly extant in
an article,' (fuch as a boatman, or a porter,) is not at liberty to detain
' the
the article with a view to receiving the hire; becaufe; in this inflance, produce any
the fubjedl of the contrail is merely labour, which is in no manner exift- *1* » 'S .
ent in the article conveyed or carried;— and the wafhirn or bleachim b'f ‘,c ca.nn°l be
. . , . . . 0 6 detained.
cloth is analogous to the porterage of it in this particular. From this
analogy in regard tq wajhitig or bleaching it may be inferred that the
term fu ller [Kiffdr\ in the preceding example, applies folely to one
who ufes flarch, or fuch other material; but, that where fuch a per-
fon, in cleanfing cloth, makes ufe of things of no eflimable value,
fuch as water and funjhine, he has not right of detention, fince in
fuch cafe nothing remains that can be termed an effedt from his labour,
the whitetiefs being an original quality inherent in the cloth.
Ka7.ee Khan fays, that if a fuller wafh cloth, and an effedt he produced
from his work by means of jlarch (for inflance,) he has a right of
detention.; but that i f he merely whiten the doth, there is in that
cafe a difference- of opinion. The approved doctrine, however, is that
he has ar right of detention in either cafe, becaufe the whitenels was a
quality concealed in the cloth, and btoughf forth by his labour. This
is different from the cafe o f a fugitive/lave; for the reftorer is' entitled
to detain a< fugitive flave with a' view to his reward, notwithftanding
there be no vifible effedt produced in the flave ; the reafon o f which is,
that the flave was in danger of being altogether loft, and was preferved
only by the reftorer bringing him back; whence he may be faid to
fell the flave to his owner, and eonfequently, that he has a ri°ftt of
detention. What is here advanced is according to our three dodlors.
Ziffer maintains that a workman poflefles no right o f detention in
either cafe; that is, whether the effedt be exiflent in the article, or
otherwife;— becaufe, wherehis work is attended with an effedt exift-
ent m the article he has already made a delivery of the fame to the
hirer, as having blended it with his property; and a right o f detention
neceflarily ceafes upon delivery. Our dodlors,(on the other
hand, argue that the workman,-in blending the effedt o f his work
with the hirer’s property; has adled merely from neceffity, fince un-
lefs he were fo to do it would be impoffible to perform the work.'
V o l . III. T t This