of the logs called for in the writ, a judgment establishing the lien will affect only such of the logs as have been attached.2 Execution. 233 § 831. A judgment establishing a lien on logs or lumber is enforced by a sale under special execution, much as in other actions of attachment. It is sufficient for the execution to describe the property to be sold as the logs mentioned in the declaration.234 Where the property attached was at the time of the attachment in possession of a creditor of the owner, and was afterwards received by him in payment of his debt, and such creditor received no notice of the suit, an execution issued upon a judgment for the plaintiff will not justify the sheriff in taking the property from such creditor.235 An execution requiring the sheriff to "levy the said damages of the goods and chattels, namely, the above-described logs, upon which the plaintiff has a lien," cannot be objected to, in replevin for the logs, as a noncompliance with a statute which provides that such execution shall, in addition to the ordinary commands, contain the command "that the said products be sold to satisfy such judgment"; the officer having been, at the time of the institution of the replevin. proceeding to sell the property, just as he would have done had the execution contained the command to do so.230 Owners of logs to which a lien has attached, having been defendants in the attachment suit on such lien, are liable to the claimant for its amount, with interest and costs, if they remove the logs beyond the reach of the officer holding the execution.237 233 Bean v. Ayers, 70 Me. 421. 234 Grand Rapids Chair Co. v. Runnels, 43 N. W. 1006, 77 Mich. 104. 235 Holyoke v. Gilmore, 45 Me. 566. 236 Grand Rapids Chair Co. v. Runnels, 43 N. W. 1006, 77 Mich. 104. 237 Goodrow v. Buckley, 38 N. W. 454, 70 Mich. 513. (856) § 832. At common law, a laborer who cultivates land, or clears or prepares it for cultivation, or assists in harvesting a crop from it, has no lien for his wages, either on the land or on the crop. Thus it has been held that a laborer who has been employed by a farmer to harvest a crop is not entitled to a lien upon it for the value of his work and services, in the absence of a special contract creating it, to be followed by an actual and physical change of possession in the nature of a pledge.1 And a provision in a lease that the crop should remain the property of the lessor till payment of all expenses necessary to care for the crop, and to put the third thereof, reserved as rent, in sacks, and to cover any liens incurred in caring for, harvesting, or threshing the crop, does not create a lien on the crop 1 McDearmid v. Foster, 12 Pac. 813, 14 Or. 417. in favor of a harvest hand. In some states, however, laws have been passed giving liens to agricultural laborers. These liens are, however, confined to the crops raised by the laborers. Thus a statute giving laborers a lien on the production of their labor has been held in Arkansas to give a laborer a lien on hay which he has cut and raked, but not upon the farm on which he has worked.* And the privilege given by the Lousiana Code "on everything which serves to the working of a farm" does not apply to immovables by destination; that is, to the farm itself." A statute giving employés general liens on the property of their employers, does not secure to farm laborers a special lien on agricultural products produced by them, nor on the farm on which they were employed. A statute providing that "any person who shall make, alter, repair, or bestow labor on any article of personal property, at the request of the owner or the lawful possessor thereof, shall have a lien upon such property so made, altered, or repaired, or upon which labor has been bestowed, for his just and reasonable charges for the labor he has performed, and the materials he has furnished, and such person may hold and retain possession of the same until such just and reasonable charges shall be paid," does not give a lien to an employé of a farmer upon a crop which the employé has harvested." 6 Based on Contract. § 833. Agricultural liens, like mechanics' liens on land, although created by statute, must be based on contract. And where the stat ute gives the laborer a lien on crops when his contract is in writ ing, an oral contract for labor will not sustain a lien. But the words "any contract," as used in the Alabama Code declaring that agricultural laborers shall have a lien upon the crops grown during the current year for labor and services rendered in the cultiva2 Lawrence v. Phy, 41 Pac. 671, 27 Or. 506. 3 Emerson v. Hedrick, 42 Ark. 263. 4 Taylor v. Hathaway, 29 Ark. 597. 5 Rogers v. Walker, 24 Fed. 344. 6 Schilling v. Carter, 28 N. W. 658, 35 Minn. 287. 7 Bramblet v. Lumsden, 6 S. E. 470, 80 Ga. 707. 8 McDearmid v. Foster, 12 Pac. 813, 14 Or. 417. Hair v. Blease, 8 S. C. 63; Gates v. Burkett, 44 Ark. 90. tion of such crops under "any contract" for such labor and services, include an implied as well as an express contract.10 Many of the agricultural liens mentioned in the reports are liens directly reserved by contract securing rent or advances of money and provisions. Such liens are in the nature of chattel mortgages. They do not fall within our definition of a mechanic's lien,11 and are, therefore, outside the scope of this work. Effect as to Third Persons. § 834. A statute which gives a "first lien in law" upon all agricultural products to secure payment of the wages of the laborer, whether to be paid in money or in products, operates against the landlords and all other persons interested in such products. It takes effect as a limitation or restriction upon the power of the employer by contract, mortgage, or other act to defeat this first lien created by law to secure to the laborer his wages out of the fruits of his industry, and the employer can create no other lien that will be paramount to it.12 Thus the lien of an agricultural superintendent on crops raised under his supervision is superior to the title of a purchaser with notice, either actual or constructive, of the lien.13 And knowledge of the superintendent's employment and of the fact that the crops bought were raised on land of which he had charge is sufficient constructive notice of the existence and extent of his lien.11 Seed-Grain Liens. 14 § 835. In Minnesota and Dakota, one who sells seed grain to a farmer, and takes what is called a "seed-grain note" therefor has, by statute, a lien on the crop raised from such seed, somewhat analogous to the lien of a material man on the building for which he has furnished materials. The lien on a crop under a seed-grain note executed and filed pursuant to statute is superior to a lien on the same crop under a previously executed and filed chattel mortgage.15 10 Wilson v. Taylor, 8 South. 149, 89 Ala. 368. 11 See ante, § 1. Brooks, 76 Ala. 308. 15 McMahan v. Lundin, 58 N. W. 827, 57 Minn. 84. In one case it appeared that a tenant agreed to take of the landlord seed wheat then on the premises, 17 No lien is created by an instrument purporting to be a seed-grain note, where the terms of the statute are not complied with, and the crop upon which the lien is claimed is not grown from seed actually furnished by the party receiving the note.18 Thus the omission, in an instrument filed to secure a lien for seed grain furnished, to describe the land on which the seed is or will be sown, as required by the statute, is fatal to the lien; and in an action to enforce such a lien a court of equity will not reform such instrument by inserting a description of the land upon which the seed was sown according to an oral understanding between the parties. But if the seed grain described in a seed-grain note is actually and in good faith furnished to the maker for seeding purposes, the fact that a portion of the seed is subsequently sold or otherwise appropriated by him, and not sown upon the land designated, will not defeat the lien of the seller, under the Minnesota statute, for the price of that portion of such seed grain actually sown upon the land, upon the crop grown therefrom.18 A mortgagee of wheat entitled to the immediate possession of the same for the purpose of foreclosure, who, in good faith, permits the mortgagor to retain a portion of the mortgaged wheat for seed, and takes a seed-grain note therefor, may avail himself of a statute providing that a party who furnishes seed to another, and takes a note therefor, may have a lien for such note on the crop raised from such seed.19 Waiver and Loss. § 836. A laborer's lien on crops resting in parol may be waived by parol.20 One who agrees to cultivate a crop to maturity, and and to give other grain in exchange. After he had sown, he was unable to deliver on his part, and then gave a "seed-grain” note, dated back to the time he received the wheat. On these facts it was held that the lien of the note was subject to that of a prior mortgage on the crop. Smith v. Roberts, 46 N. W. 336, 43 Minn. 342. 16 Wallace v. Palmer, 30 N. W. 445, 36 Minn. 126. 17 Lavin v. Bradley, 47 N. W. 384, 1 N. D. 291. 18 Nash v. Brewster, 41 N. W. 105, 39 Minn. 530. 19 Warder-Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Minnesota & D. Elevator Co., 46 N. W. 773, 44 Minn. 390; O'Brien v. Findeisen, 50 N. W. 1035, 48 Minn. 213. 20 Buck v. Payne, 52 Miss. 271. An assignee of the laborer succeeds to the laborer's position in regard to the lien. But he acquires no better right. If the |