The Alaska citizen., 1910-10-24

above mentioned; yet. under all shese clrcum- tances, he persisrenrly pursued his efforts. and now would holI the building of the defendant liable Such construction cannot De legally maintained under the statute. nor can it be based on any equities known 10 this court.
 Co, nsel for plaintin contends in his brief that the building as al tered and enlarged should be held under the lien. citing many cases. but the Court is unable to lind a single authority 10 sustain such q contention on the facts before the Court in this action.
 II is true that cases are numerous where buildings have been held un- der liens similar to the ones filed m h. -crtoH. uu IT statutes whose provisions are practically the same as ours. but in each instance two distinct features will be found. not present here.
 1st-That the structures on which the lien .s sough, l., bc imposed have been added to the realty during the term ot the option or lease: in other words, that il is not the mere alter q f,n nt. but ai+ building or such alteration of an other. having no particular value so as to make it. to all intents and purposes. new In either event. it is an addition to the realty as il existed when optioned or leased, and permitting a lienor to reap the fruits n.~ l4lors. aud not tn the leas, iu pair the value of the building or .r .',n. when r.. !"r-r to rro Dl, Ii her or lessor;
 2nd.-'rhat the character os the building or structure. machinery, etc. permits it's being severed from the really.
 While considerable alteration was made i1 the structure owned by the defendant. during the time i, was helG under the option. yet the fact remains that it cost and was worth about $3.000.Uo at the time of the alteraticn or reconstruction began and though enlarged from one story building. +3XJ0 fec, to 2 two story Duilding. and an addition made of the same height. 25X4& feet, prac- tiCaily reconstructing the former in 0 a new building so far as appear ances are concerned, still the evi- dfucc shows that tho materials formerly in the building still re manned, though distributed through out the altered structure; some in their original position and others now in the second story which were formerly in the first storv
 il is suggested that to hold such a building not subject to a lien for lator or materials furnished in it's reconstruction, would allow the own CTS 10 commit fraud on the licnOrs. by the owners entering into an agreement with their lessors or tC porscn holding the property under an option. to erect or reconstruct a building and then cut off the lien ors' rights b. posting notices, as re. Quired under section 265 of our Code In this case no fraud is either alleged or minated. nor deception prarticcd
 Nearly all human affairs may be made the subject of fraud, but for that reason courts are not justified in anticipating fraud, ard refusing to apply the statutes to the condi- tions within it's terms, when snown. There k no evidence before the Court that this building can be sev- cred from the realty.
 Let Findings Of l'nc, anl rYuclu sions of Law be prepared according, ly
 Dated Fairbanks, Alaska. October r, 1910
 P. D. OVERFIELD.
 District Judge