Definition
A farrier is a person who has taken upon himself the public employment of shoeing horses. In law, the significance of the term extends beyond a mere occupational description: a farrier who holds himself out to the public in this trade assumes obligations analogous to those of an innkeeper or common carrier. He is bound to serve all who apply at a reasonable time and in the ordinary course of his trade, and an action lies against him for an unjustified refusal to do so. He is likewise liable for negligence or want of skill in the performance of his work.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A person who maintains the health and balance of horses' feet through the trimming of hoofs and fitting of horseshoes.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A shoer of horses; also, a veterinary surgeon.
The legal definition is narrower than Webster's in one respect — it does not encompass the broader veterinary role — but significantly broader in its legal consequence. Where ordinary usage treats the term as a simple occupational label, the legal definition triggers a body of public-calling doctrine: duties of service, liability for refusal, and liability for negligent workmanship that would not automatically attach to a private tradesperson.
Common Confusion
The Webster's 1913 definition equates farrier with veterinary surgeon as an alternative meaning. In legal sources, these roles are treated distinctly. The legal duties attached to a farrier flow from the public-employment character of the horse-shoeing trade, not from any medical or veterinary function. A person holding himself out as a veterinary practitioner operates under a different body of law — licensure requirements, professional negligence standards — that does not overlap cleanly with the common-calling framework applicable to farriers.
Why It Matters in Research
The farrier's legal significance is almost entirely historical. Researchers encounter the term primarily in two contexts: (1) early common law cases on the duties of common callings, and (2) 19th-century treatises on the law of horses and livestock — particularly Oliphant's The Law Concerning Horses, Horse-Racing, Wagers, and Gaming, which is the authority repeatedly cited by the historical dictionaries for this entry.
The doctrine that emerges from those sources — that a tradesperson who publicly undertakes a service is bound to perform it for all comers and is liable for negligent performance — is an ancestor of modern common-carrier and public-accommodation law. A researcher tracing that doctrinal line will find the farrier cases useful as early illustrations of the principle, even though the specific trade has long since ceased to generate litigation.
One navigational trap: Bouvier's entry is truncated in many digitized versions, cutting off mid-sentence in the discussion of liability. The full passage addresses liability for negligent shoeing causing injury to the horse. Researchers should seek complete print editions or verified facsimiles when relying on Bouvier for the substantive rule.
Rapalje & Lawrence's citation to 1 Ld. Raym. 654 refers to the English reports of Lord Raymond, a primary common law source for the public-calling obligation. Researchers tracing the doctrine to its English roots should begin there.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three sources agree on the core definition — a person publicly employed in shoeing horses — and on the public-calling character of the trade. The differences are in emphasis and completeness.
Black's is the most compressed, offering only the occupational description without elaborating on legal consequences. It is useful as a quick identifier but not as a source of doctrine.
Rapalje & Lawrence adds the common-calling classification and points directly to Lord Raymond's Reports and Oliphant's treatise, making it the most useful entry for locating primary sources.
Bouvier is the most substantive, expressly analogizing the farrier to an innkeeper and common carrier, stating the duty to serve, and addressing the action for refusal. The truncation noted above limits its utility in some editions, but where complete, it provides the clearest statement of the applicable doctrine.
None of the three entries address the decline of the trade or the displacement of this common-law doctrine by modern regulatory and veterinary licensing frameworks. Researchers should not expect these sources to speak to contemporary practice.
Jurisdictional Note
The public-calling doctrine applied to farriers was a creature of English common law adopted broadly in American courts during the 18th and 19th centuries. Given the near-total obsolescence of the trade as a source of litigation, modern jurisdictional variation is not practically significant. Researchers working on historical American cases should verify whether a particular jurisdiction had adopted the relevant English precedents at the time in question.