176 PREPARATION AND MANUFACTURE 



for the services performed by those in his employ, l nor 

 even to one who performs manual work himself under an 

 agreement by which he is to receive payment by the piece 

 where his work and that of his servants and team is not 

 performed under the direction and supervision of the owner 

 of the timber. 2 However, if the work is performed under 

 the immediate direction of the owner, the lien will extend 

 to employees of the one contracting with the owner, 3 and 

 under some statutes even to subcontractors. 4 A laborer's 

 lien has been denied to one who furnished supplies to the 

 laborers even though the credit was given under an agree- 

 ment with the employer that payment for the supplies 

 should be deducted from the wages of the men. 5 A hen 

 will not be enforced in favor of a trespasser. 6 A lien right 

 is primarily founded upon a contract and thus can be en- 

 forced only against one with whom the lien claimant has 

 directly or indirectly entered into an agreement for the per- 

 formance of services, 7 and one log owner cannot be charged 



1. Ark. Klondike Lbr. Co. v. Williams, 71 Ark. 334, 75 S. W.854. 



Me. Rogers v. Dexter Etc. R. Co., 85 Me. 372, 27 Atl. 257, 21 L. R. A. 528. . 

 Pa. Burge v. Comerer, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 5 (Holding one cutting and hauling timber 



to a mill not a manufacturer) . But see Hoflfa v. Person, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 



367. 

 Wash. Campbell v. Sterling Mfg. Co., 11 Wash 204, 39 Pac. 451; but see Blumaer 



v. Clock, 24 Wash. 596, 64 Pac. 844, 85 Am. St. Rep. 966. 



Wis. Compare Bradford v. Underwood Lbr. Co., 80 Wis. 50, 48 N. W. 1105. 

 Vt. Quimby v. Hazen, 54 Vt. 132. 

 Can. Dallaire v. Gauthier, 24 Can. Sup. Ct. 495; Baxter v. Kennedy, 35 N. 



Brunsw. 179. 

 Contra 

 Mich. Phillips v. Freyer, 80 Mich. 254, 45 N. W. 81 (overruling Kieldsen v. Wilson 



77 Mich. 45, 43 N. W. 1054) ; Shaw v. Bradley, 59 Mich. 199, and Hall 



v. Tittabawassee Boom Co., 51 Mich. 377, 16 N. W. 770. 

 Minn. Carver v. Bagley, 79 Minn. 114, 81 N. W. 757 (Cf. King v. Kelly. 25 Minn. 



522, where contractor expressly excluded by statute). 



2. Littlefleld v. Morrill, 97 Me. 505, 54 Atl. 1109, 94 Am. St. Rep. 513; Sparks v. 



Crescent Lbr. Co. (Tex. Civ! App. 1905) 89 S. W. 423. 



3. Allen v. Roper, 75 Ark. 104, 86 S. W. 836; Klondike Lbr. Co. v. Williams, 71 Ark. 



334, 75 S. W. 854 (distinguishing Tucker v. St. Louis Etc. R. Co., 59 Ark. 81, 26 

 S. W. 375); Doe v. Monson, 33 Me. 430; Reilly v. Stephenson, 62 Mich. 509; 

 Babka v. Eldred, 47 Wis. 189, 2 N. W. 102; 599; Munger v. Lenroot, 32 Wis. 

 541. Contra, Wright v. Terry, 23 Fla. 160, 2 So. 6; Kendall v. Davis, 52 Ga. 

 9; Jacobs v. Knapp, 50 N. H. 71. And see Wilson v. Barnard, 67 Calif. 422, 

 7 Pac. 845; Gross v. Eiden, 53 Wis. 543, 11 N. W. 9. See Timber Co. v. Joseph 

 142 Wis. 55, 124 N. W. 1049. 



4. Carver v. Bagley, 79 Minn. 114, 81 N. W. 757. 



.5. Hyde v. German Nat'l Bank, 115 Wis. 170, 91 N. W. 230. 

 , 6. Oliver v. Woodman, 66 Me. 54; Dwinel v. Fiske, 9 Me. 21; Carr v. Brick, 113 



Mich. 664. 



.7. Oliver v. Woodman, 66 Me. 54; Shaw v. Bradley, 59 Mich. 199. Cf. Wright v. 

 Terry, 23 Fla. 160; Bicknell v. Tuckey, 34 Me. 273, Gamble v. Gates, 97 Mich. 

 465; Federspiel v. Johnstone, 87 Mich. 303; Munroe v. Sedro Lbr. Etc. Co., 16 

 Wash. 694. 



