The Alaska citizen., 1910-10-24
Mechanics Lien Law INTERPRETATION oVERFIELo N voLvlNG RIVERSIDE sLocK-JusT DECIDED BY

ion by Justice Hawley, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
 In that case the first point dis cussed was as 10 the sufiiciency of he allegation in the complaint, con meeting the lien claimants with the owners ol the lot and building The building had been altered and repair ed by the lienors. under contract with one Helen Haynor, who held he lot and building and was in pos session of the same at the time, under an option 10 purchase from the owners. Leo Bartz and Charles Seipel
 There was no allegation in the complaint that the lien claimants furnished material or labor for the owners of the lot and building. but that they were furnished for Helen Haynor
 After discussing the necessity of the allegation by the lien claimants and connecting them with the own CTS of the building under contract for the erection alteration and re pairs. the opinion says.
 But even if it could be held tha' the allegation as to the owner, ship of the building was sufficient. still the complaint would be defec- tive. because the statement in the lien tha5 Leo Bartz and Charles Sci pei are the names of the owners of the lot of land upon which the building was erected. and that Helen F. Haynor was the name of the party who was under an agreement .to purchase. and that she was the person who entered into an agree ment with the lionors for the erec- ton of the building. is not sufficient to constitute a compliance with the provisions of the Alaska code.
 The mere fact the appellants Ghe lien C}almantsl built the structure at the instance Of Haynor. who was in possession of the land under con. tract to purchase with the owners.
 IS not. of itself. sufficient 10 consti- ute valid lien upon the building.
 In order to bring the case with in the provisions of See. 2G2. il must he alleged and proved that the work or labor was done at the instance of the owner of the building. or his agent, 10 authorize a lien under the provisions of this section. There must be an employment by the own CT of the building. or his authorized agent. The employment of the con tractors, by Helen F. Haynor. who was occupying the land under con tract Of purchase, does not consti- ute the employment contemplated by the provisions of the code.
 The opinion continues to discuss the liabilities of the owner under section 2G5 Of the Alaska code. As suming hey were not parties 70 the contract, Vet having actual knowl edge of the employment and mater ials furnished the Court says:
 In order to bring the case with in the provisions of section 2o5 of the Alaska code, it was necessary for the appellants tthe lien claimants) to have alleged in the complaint or lien that the building was con structed upon the land. with the knowledge of the owner or person having or claiming any interest therein, for it is only in such cases shall be held to have been construc- ted at the instance of such owner or person or persons having. or claiming any interest therein. un- less the owner gives the notice therein prescribed; and this notice is not required to be given until after the owner shall have obtained knowledge of the construction of the building
 To bind the building under a me chanic's lien for labor and materials furnished, there must be an em- ployment by the owner of the build ing, or his authorized agent; to constitute the contractor, sub-con- tractor. architect, builder or other person having charge of the con- struction, alteration or repair, in whole or in part, of any building. the statutory agent of the owner. such person must have been em- ployed disertly or. indirectly at the such person must have been employed directly or indirectly at the instance of the owner. or his conventional agent Gould vs. Wise, Nev 3, Pac.. 90; Cross vs. Tscharin, 39 Pac., $40; Sutherland ys. Morton. Ore, 100 Pac.. page 1.
 At the instance" of the owner signifies. at the motion of; consent; at least, knowledge of. The defend ant Caskey admits he knew when the option was given that the parties intended to make some changes or repairs on the building, and while he did not forbid this. and probably acquiesced; and it might be in-