Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/275

This page needs to be proofread.
HIAM v. ANDREWS GRAIN CO.
251

has been introduced in evidence, it will be so considered on appeal, although, in fact, it was not formally introduced.

Agriculture-payment to thresher per hour held not to invalidate thresher's lien.

3. §6855, C. L. 1913, relating to thresher's liens does not require that such lien shall show that the parties agreed on a certain price per bushel for threshing the grain upon which a lien is claimed; and such lien if otherwise sufficient, is not rendered invalid because it shows that the parties, instead of a certain rate per bushel, agreed that the thresher should be paid so much per hour for the time employed in threshing.

Opinion filed June 27, 1921.

From a judgment of the County Court of Ransom county, Thomas, J., defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

H. A. Libby, for appellant.

J. V. Backlund, for respondent.

Christianson, J. This is an action for conversion of certain wheat on which the plaintiff claims a thresher's lien. The case was tried to a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $233.22. Judgment was entered pursuant to the verdict and the defendant has appealed.

Appellant raises three questions: (1) That there is no proof that the plaintiff was qualified to claim a thresher's lien under § 6854, C. L. 1913, which provides that such a lien may be claimed only by the owner or lessee of a threshing machine; (2) that the lien was never offered in evidence; (3) that the lien statement is deficient in that it does not contain a statement of the price charged for the threshing, within the purview of the statute. We will consider these propositions in the order stated.

The plaintiff testified on his direct examination that his busi- ness consisted of farming and threshing; that he operated a threshing machine in the fall of 1920, with which he threshed grain for others; that among those for whom he threshed was one Hakanson, for whom he threshed the grain in controversy; that Hakanson had paid plaintiff part of such threshing bill. In the thresher's lien statement the plaintiff, under oath, said:

"That he is the owner and operator of the threshing machine; that he