Pac. Rep. 350). The rule is well settled that property which is exempt from sale under execution upon grounds of public policy is not within the operation of or subject to the mechanic's lien law unless the statute conferring this special remedy so expressly declares. Williams v. Controllers, 18 Pa. St. 275; National Foundry & Pipe Works v. Oconto Water Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 43; Whiting v. Story Co., 54 Iowa, 81 (6 N. W. Rep. 137; 37 Am. Rep. 189); Ripley v. Gage Co. Com'rs, 3 Neb. 397. Judge Dillon in his work on municipal corporations (3rd Ed., § 577) in stating this rule, says: Property owned by a municipal corporation and used for public purposes can not be sold by virtue of an execution issued on a judgment rendered against the corporation. As one of the results of this general rule, there can be no mechanic's lien against such property. Thus, county bridges, schoolhouses, court houses and other public buildings, which can not be sold under an execution, can not be sold on foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. It is only such property as can be sold under judicial process that is subject to such liens.' In Board of Com'rs v. Norrington, 82 Ind. 190, it is held that public policy forbids either the acquisition or enforcement of a mechanic's lien against a public bridge. So, too, in Loring v. Small, 50 Iowa 271 (32 Am. Rep. 136), which was a suit to enforce a mechanic's lien aganst a bridge constructed for a county, Day, J., in rendering the decision of the court, says: 'We feel no hesitancy in holding that the property in question in this case cannot be made subject to a mechanic's lien in view of the statute which exempts it from execution.' The statute enumerates bridges in the class of property which is subject to mechanics' liens (section 3669, Hill's Ann. Laws Or.); but since a bridge may be constructed by a private person for his own use, the mere adoption of the word in statutory classification does not necessarily mean a public bridge, and, public policy demanding that a bridge built by a county on a public highway should be open to the public, which which might be denied the use thereof if it could be sold under execution, compels us to hold that without the use of the qualifying word 'public,' no lien can attach to or be enforced against a bridge of that character."

Construing Wash. Gen. Stat., §§ 2415, 2417, providing

for the execution of a bond by one contracting with public authorities to do work of such character that if performed for an individual a lien might be claimed therefor, upon which any person furnishing material or labor to such contractor may have a right of action thereon, it is held that the statute applies to a contractor with a county for the erection of a bridge; that the right to sue on such bond is not affected by the remoteness of a subcontractor, and such right is assignable. Gilmore v. Westerman, 13 Wash. St. 390 (43 Pac. Rep. 345).

Sec. 516. Joint lien on several lots or buildings. The right to a mechanic's lien may arise out of a single contract for furnishing material for two or more buildings on several contiguous lots constituting a single tract or parcel of ground. Mulvane v. Chicago Lumber Co., 56 Kan. 675 (44 Pac. Rep. 613). Where, while material is being furnished for the construction of several houses on one tract of land it is subdivided according to the number of the houses, the lien should be apportioned and charged pro rata against the houses. Blanchard v. Fried, 162 Ill. 462 (44 N. E. Rep. 880). Where materials are furnished from time to time under a contract for the general improvement of several buildings, comprising a single manufacturing plant, located on a small tract of land, one lien may be filed for all the materials against all the buildings as a whole. Premier Steel Co. v. McElwaineRichards Co., 144 Ind. 614 (43 N. E. Rep. 876). Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1188, which requires the claimant who files a lien against two or more buildings, or other improvements, to designate the specific amount for which he claims a lien upon each of such improvements, does not apply to a lien claim made under a contract for the grading of two blocks of land, the earth taken from one to be placed on the other, and the compensation to be so much per cubic yard of filling. Warren v. Hopkins, 110 Cal. 506 (42 Pac. Rep. 986).

Sec. 517. Priority of mechanics' liens. Mechanics* liens acquired on property after judgment liens against it have been released have priority over them. In re Bitner's Estate, 178 Pa. St. 90 (34 Atl. Rep. 957). A lien acquired for

improvements made by a vendee in possession under a contract of purchase, not in pursuance of any contract with the vendor, is subject to the latter's lien for the purchase price. Fuller v. Pauley, 48 Neb. 138 (66 N. W. Rep. 1115). The lien of a mortgage which by its terms attaches to after acquired property when it comes into being is subject to a mechanic's lien attaching at that time for work and labor which brought such property into being. Jarvis v. State Bank, 22 Colo. 309 (45 Pac. Rep. 505; 55 Am. St. Rep. 129). Citing, 1 Jones, Mortg., 158; Phil. Mech. Liens, § 242; Williamson v. Railroad Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 277; 29 N. J. Eq. 311; U. S. v. New Orleans R. Co., 12 Wall. 362. Co., 12 Wall. 362. A purchase-money mortgage given by a vendee to a vendor simultaneously with the delivery of the deed to him will take precedence over a mechanic's lien claim for work done for the vendee before he acquired the legal title. New Jersey Bldg., L. & Inv. Co. v. Bachelor, 54 N. J. Eq. 600 (35 Atl. Rep. 745); Missouri Val. Lum. Co. v. Reid, 4 Kan. App. 4 (45 Pac. Rep. 722). Where, pending the erection of a building, the owner thereof conveys the premises, agreeing with his vendee to complete such building, and immediately prior to such conveyance executes a mortgage to a third party, mechanics' liens incurred in the completion of the building have priority over the mortgage. Erdman v. Moore, 58 N. J. L. 445 (33 Atl. Rep. 958). A mortgagee having notice of the erection of buildings at the time he takes his mortgage, takes subject to mechanics' liens acquired on account of the erection of such buildings, although subsequently filed. In re Miller's Estate, 177 Pa. St. 168 (35 Atl. Rep. 702); Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Ore. 150 (44 Pac. Rep. 390). Where a mortgage loan upon real estate was negotiated before the commencement of a building thereon, but the papers were not executed, delivered, or recorded, and the loan was not ciosed up, nor any money paid thereon, until after the excavation for the building was begun, the mechanics' liens for labor and material, duly preserved, are prior and paramount to the lien of the mortgage. Nixon v. Cydon Lodge No. 5, K. of P., 56 Kan. 298 (43 Pac. Rep. 236). A mortgagee who encourages the improvement of the mortgaged property by an agreement to subordinate his lien to the cost thereof will, as to persons

furnishing labor and material for use thereon upon the faith of his promise, be deemed a promoter of such improvement, and their liens for labor and material so furnished will be entitled to priority over his mortgage. Cummings v. Emslie, 49 Neb 485 (68 N. W. Rep. 621). Where a mortgage was executed after the filing of a mechanic's lien but before judgment was obtained on it, a subsequent judgment on the lien is not conclusive against the mortgagee as to whether the lien was filed in time. Safe-Deposit & T. Co. v. Columbia Iron & S. Co., 176 Pa. St. 536 (35 Atl. Rep. 229).

Sec. 518. Priority of mechanics' liens-Statutes construed. Sand & H. Ark. Dig., § 4766, construed-priority of laborer's lien. Watson v. May, 62 Ark. 435 (35 S. W. Rep. 1108). Colo. Gen. Stat., 1883, §§ 1720, 2148; Laws, 1887, p. 314, construed and applied-priority of lien for constructing flume across a stream for an irrigating canal, over mortgage on right of way. Farves v. State Bank, 22 Colo. 309 (45 Pac. Rep. 505; 55 Am. St. Rep. 129). Where a statute (Ind. Rev. Stat., 1894, § 3350) makes a conveyance void as against subsequent bona fide purchasers for value unless recorded within a given number of days after its execution, a right to a mechanic's lien acquired before the recording of a mortgage not recorded within the time prescribed by the statute has priority over such mortgage although the notice for a lien was not filed until after the recording of the mortgage. Jenckes v. Jenckes v. Jenckes, 145 Ind. 624 (44 N. E. Rep. 632). Under Ind. Rev. Stat., 1894, § 7255, when the person, firm or corporation against whom persons have the right to enforce mechanics' liens are "in failing circumstances" such claims shall be preferred debts, whether notice of lien be filed or not." Jenckes v. Jenckes, 145 Ind. 624 (44 N. E. Rep. 632). Construing and applying Mont. Gen. Laws, 1887, div. 5, § 1374, which provides that mechanics' liens for labor and material "shall be prior to and have precedence over any mortgage, incumbrance or any other lien made subsequent to the commencement of work on any contract for the erection of such building, structure or other improvement," it is held that a lien for plastering a building is superior to a previous mortgage given after the commencement of

66

the building. Murray v. Swanson, 18 Mont. 533 (46 Pac. Rep. 441). A lien of a deed of trust conveying all the ores that may be mined and taken from such mines does not have priority over a lien given laborers for mining such ore. Mill. & V. Tenn. Code, §§ 2768-2770, applied. Galloway v. Blue Springs Min. Co., Tenn. (37 S. W. Rep. 1016). Construing Sayles' Tex. Civ. Stat., Art. 3179, providing that mechanics' liens "shall be upon an equal footing, without reference to the date of filing the lien," and Art. 3171, providing that "any lien, incumbrance or mortgage on land, or improvement at time of inception of lien, shall not be affected thereby," it is held that when the erection of any building or construction of any improvement is begun, that constitutes the inception of all subsequent liens, and a mortgage taken upon an incomplete building is subject to all mechanics' liens which accrue before its completion. Oriental Hotel Co. v. Griffiths, 88 Tex. 574 (33 S. W. Rep. 652; 53 Am. St. Rep. 790; 30 L. R. A. 765). Construing Wis. Rev. Stat., § 3314, which provides that " every person, who, as principal contractor, architect, civil engineer, or surveyor, performs any work or labor, furnishes any materials or prepares any plans or estimates for, in or about the erection, construction, repair or removal of any dwelling house or other building, or any machinery erected or constructed so as to be, or become a part of the freehold upon which it is situated,

shall have a lien thereupon, and upon the interest of the owner of such dwelling house, building, machinery *

in and to the land upon which the same is situated.

*

*

Such lien shall be prior to any other lien which originates subsequent to the commencement of the construction * ** 告 or work aforesaid of, or upon such dwelling house, building, machinery, * * * and shall also attach to and be a lien upon the real property of any person on whose premises such improvements are made," it is held that a mechanic's lien for machinery placed in a mill is superior to a prior mortgage taken out on the premises after the erection of the building was commenced, the machinery being contracted for before the mortgage was made. Cassoday, C. J., dissenting. Vilas 7. McDonough Mfg Co., 91 Wis. 607 (65 N. W. Rep. 488; 51 Am. St. Rep. 925: 30 L. R. A. 778)