might be contended for in this:case, we are of the opinion that in view of the state of the pleadings and of the record made at the trial, a judgment for the defendant, based upon a conversion by the plaintiff is amply warranted.
The plaintiff questions some of the items of advances, but if the questionable items be deducted those that must be conceded, together with the defendant’s claim for $300 cash rental for which Nelson’s share was pledged as security, amount to more than the value of the share. Hence it is needless to consider the evidence bearing upon the disputed advances.
The plaintiff and appellant further contends that it should be reimbursed in the sum of $135.50 for expenses incurred in connection with the flax crop. Here again, if Halpern should recover in his own right one-half the value of the crop, the remaining half, to which his lien for advances attaches, is not adequate to cover the advances and expenses necessarily incurred by him. The claim of the plaintiff for these expenses was properly denied.
The respondent contends that the court erred in denying him a lien upon certain of the rye and in decreeing the plaintiff to have a first lien thereon. It does not appear to us from the record that the respondent has sustained the burden of proof upon this matter, and hence the judgment will not be disturbed.
It follows that the judgment is right, and it is affirmed.
Bronson}}, Robinson, and Christianson, JJ., concur.
Grace, C. J., concurs in the result.
