one employed at a fixed monthly salary to act as a clerk and bookkeeper during the construction of a building and to make himself generally useful. Nash v. Southwick, 120 N. C. 459 (27 S. E. Rep. 127). Where one who is employed for a year at a fixed monthly salary to perform such services as his employers may direct, performs lienable and nonlienable work indiscriminately upon a building, he cannot enforce a mechanic's lien. Getty v. Ames, 30 Or. 573 (48 Pac. Rep. 355; 60 Am. St. Rep. 835). A lien may be enforced for material and labor used in the construction of a water tank upon a farm. Parker Land & Imp. Co. v. Reddick, 18 Ind. App. 616 (47 N. E. Rep. 848). A lien may be claimed for labor and materials furnished in the erection of the apparatus for gas works. Mill. & V. Tenn. Code, § 2739 (Shannon's Code, § 3531), applied. Bristol-Goodson Elec. L. & P. Co. v. Bristol Gas, E. L. & P. Co., 99 Tenn. 371 (42 S. W. Rep. 19). Where a contractor is prevented from completing his work by the wrongful interruption of the owner, he is entitled to a lien for the reasonable value of the labor he has performed and material he has furnished, but he cannot have a lien for damages sustained from breach of contract. Neb. Comp. Stat., ch. 54, art. 1, applied. Pardue v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 52 Neb. 201 (71 N. W. Rep. 1022; 66 Am. St. Rep. 489). Where one adjoining owner builds a party wall on the dividing line between his lot and that of his neighbor, under an agreement with the latter that he will pay one-half of the costof the wall when he shall use it, he cannot enforce a mechanic's lien for one-half of the cost of the wall against his neighbor's lot when he makes use of the wall. Swift v. Calnan, 102 Ia. 206 (71 N. W. Rep. 233; 63 Am. St. Rep. 443; 37 L. R. A. 462). Particular evidence held sufficient to show that the work done in the "alteration and repair of an old house," constituted the "erection of a dwelling house," so that a lien can be claimed therefor. Ward v. Crane, 118 Cal. 676 (50 Pac. Rep. 839). For construction of particular contract as to items for which a lien may be claimed, see Stokes v. Green, 10 S. Dak. 286 (73 N. W. Rep. 100).

Sec. 533. Construction of sidewalk. Construing Ga. Civ. Code, § 2801, providing that "all mechanics of every

sort who have taken no personal security therefor, shall, for work done and material furnished in building, repairing or improving any real estate of their employers, * each

have a special lien on such real estate," it is held that a mechanic who lays a sidewalk in front of the real estate of his employer, is not entitled to a lien therefor on such real estate. Seeman v. Schultze, 100 Ga. 603 (28 S. E. Rep. 378). Citing, Parmlee v. Hambleton, 19 Ill. 615; Coenen v. Staub, 74 Ia. 32 (36 N. W. Rep. 877; 7 Am. St. Rep. 470). The court say: "The lien is given for building, repairing or improving any real estate, which we think means that the building, repairs or improvements must be upon the real estate itself in order to give a mechanic a lien. The sidewalk of a public street is not upon the real estate of the owner of an adjacent lot. Paving the sidewalk is an improvement to the public street, and facilitates the passage of pedestrians in front of the lot, but it cannot be said in law that it improves the real estate. It is made as much or more for the benefit of the public than it is for the benefit of the owner of the lot. In our opinion, it does not improve the lot any more than does the paving of the street in front thereof. If a mechanic is entitled to a lien for paving the sidewalk, it seems to us that he should also be entitled to a lien for paving the street. Paving is usually regulated largely by the municipal government. It either paves the sidewalk, or requires the owner of the lot to do so. If the city authorities pave it, an assessment is levied against the owner for the cost; if he paves it himself, he pays for it. It does not appear in the record of this case whether the fee of the owner extended to the middle of the street, and included the sidewalk, or whether the fee of the whole street, including the sidewalk, is in the city or state. Under our statute we think this would make no difference, for in neither case would paving the sidewalk be an improvement upon the real estate itself."

Sec. 534. Architect's services. Construing Mass. Pub. Stat., ch. 191, § 1, giving a lien for "labor performed or furnished * * * and actually used in the erection of a building," it is held that the statute does not give a lien for the services of an architect in preparing plans and specifications for a building, but a lien may be enforced by him for

supervising the construction of a building although done in connection with the preparation of the plans and under the same general employment. Mitchell v. Packard, 168 Mass. 467 (47 N. E. Rep. 113; 60 Am. St. Rep. 404). The court say: "The preparation of plans and specifications is preliminary to the construction of a building, and is often merely tentative. It may or may not be followed by a construction according to the plans. It is seldom that either the external or internal form of a building is determined upon, or its identity is anything more than an indefinite mental conception, until after the plans have been completed. We are of opinion that this professional work of the architect, in bringing into existence the definite form and conception of a building which may be erected if the landowner adopts it, is not labor performed or furnished * and actually

used in the erection' of a building, within the meaning of our statute. We are of opinion that the work of supervision, which if done directly upon the building, and which is partly physical, but, in its more important part, mental, may be the subject of a lien, under our statute, even if done by the same person who prepares the plans as an architect. Where such work is done under an entire contract for a round sum, which covers compensation for other work which is not the subject of a lien, it may be difficult to separate the part of the price which belongs to this work from that which belongs to the other, and in such a conceivable case, it might be impossible to establish a lien for anything. In the present case no sum was agreed upon for the whole or for any part of the petitioner's services, and the judge has found that a certain price is ordinarily allowed in such cases for supervision.'

Sec. 535. Labor on mining claim-Statutes construed. N. M. Comp. Laws, § 1520, giving a lien to one "who performs labor in any mining claim," it is held that a lien cannot be enforced under the statute for the services of one employed as manager and superintendent, who does not perform any bodily toil. Boyle v. Mountain Key Min. Co., N. M. (50 Pac. Rep. 347). In support of its conclusion the court carefully reviews and cites the following cases: Mining Co. v. Cullins, 104 U. S. 176; Smallhouse v. Mining

Co., 2 Mont. 445; Railway Co. v. Baker, 14 Kan. 5; Railroad Co. v. Leuffer, 84 Pa. St. 171; England v. Piano Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 470 (4 Atl. Rep. 307); Blakey v. Blakey, 27 Mo. 39; Nelson v. Withrow, 14 Mo. App. 276; Stryker v. Stryker, 10 Hun. 18; Foushee v. Grigsby, 12 Bush 76. Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1192, construed and applied-liability of one having a partial interest in a mining claim for improvements made on it, on account of failure to post notice that he would not be responsible. Hamilton v. Delhi Min. Co., 118 Cal. 148 (50 Pac. Rep. 378).

Sec. 536. Improvements by a vendee. Where the vendor reserves the title until the purchase money is fully paid, a lien for improvements made by a vendee who owes unpaid installments of the purchase price attaches only to his interest, which interest is the value of the property to be conveyed including any improvements placed thereon less the unpaid purchase money, and the rights of such vendor pass to his assignee or grantee. Mutual Aid Bldg. & L. Co. v. Gashe, 56 O. St. 273 (46 N. E. Rep. 985). Where a vendor retains the deed as security for the price to be paid for the land, as against him, a lien cannot be enforced for improvements made by the vendee before the delivery of the deed, although made with his knowledge. Mass. Pub. Stat., ch. 191, § 1, applied. Courtemanche v. Blackstone Val. St. Ry. Co., 170 Mass. 50 (48 N. E. Rep. 937; 64 Am. St. Rep. 27 Where an owner of land, combining with a contractor to aid him in a speculation, conveys the land to him, reserving a vendor's lien, and there is an agreement between them for the improvement of the property by the contractor, and its subsequent sale by him and payment of the purchase price, such contractor will be treated as the agent of the vendor in contracting with material men and mechanics for the making of improvements on the lands, within the meaning of Mill & V. Tenn. Code, § 2739; Shannon's Code, § 3531, giving a lien on land for improvements made by special contract of the owner or his agent. Persons entitled to liens under this section are not required to give the thirty days' notice required by Tenn. Laws 1889, ch. 103. Fonte v. Gill, Tenn. (39 S. W. Rep. 750).

Sec. 537. Improvements by lessee or licensee. A lien for materials or improvements may be enforced against a lessee to the extent of his interest under his lease. Meek v. Parker, 63 Ark. 367 (38 S. W. Rep. 900; 58 Am. St. Rep. 119). Where a lessor consents to the making of improvements by his lessee his interest may be subjected to a lien therefor, where he fails to give notice disclaiming his liability, as provided for by Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1192. Santa Monica Lum. & Mill Co. v. Hege, 119 Cal. 376 (51 Pac. Rep. 555). Where, pending an action to enforce a lien against a tenant's leasehold estate on account of improvements made by him, the lessor acquires possession in puruance of the terms of the lease and warrant of attorney, the lessee has no interest which can be bound by a subsequent judgment in the proceedings. Seltzer v. Robbins, 181 Pa. St. 451 (37 Atl. Rep. 567). Where a lease or a contract for a lease provides for the erection of buildings on the premises by the lessee, the cost thereof to be paid to him by his retention of the rents, the lessee becomes the agent of the owner, under Wash. Laws 1893, p. 32, so as to render the property liable for mechanics' liens on account of the construction of such building. Kremer v. Walton, 16 Wash. 139 (47 Pac. Rep. 238). Where a mechanic at the request of a lessee of a building places in it and attaches to its walls, wainscoting, veneering, door frames and casing, and constructs board partitions, such improvements are not trade fixtures as between them, but a lien may be enforced on the lessee's interest for the labor and materials used by such mechanic. Matthiesen v. Arata, 32 Or. 342 (50 Pac. Rep. 1015). The mere fact that a lessor agrees with his lessee that he may make alterations and improvements which are to become a part of the premises, is not, of itself, sufficient to render the property liable to a mechanic's lien for any amount that the lessee might expend in such alterations without the lessor's knowledge and without his giving any other consent. Hankinson v. Vantinc, 152 N. Y. 20 (46 N. E. Rep. 292). S. & B. Ann. Wis. Stat., §§ 3314, 3314a, which prohibit the acquisition of a lien when the relation of landlord and tenant exists, applies where there was no agreement in the lease or contemporaneous with it binding the tenant to make the improvements for which the