EUBBABD V. BELLEW. 853 �see nothing in the contract to restrict him in his selection to one, any more than to the other, class of lands. The mill was to be built to accommodate the business of sawing the timber for all the lands; and it was to be built for the benefit of both parties to the contract. Bellew was, it is true, to have a deed in fee of the 40-acre tract selected ; but, af ter mortgaging it to a third party to secure the sum of $6,500, he was to give a second mortgage to the parties to the contract, to secure the faithful performance of the contract. It was as much for the interest of one party as the other, that it should be in the best location possible, for the purpose of its construction and use. The question presented by the case is whether or not Hub- bard, by virtue of his having advanced the money on the strength of the contract to build the mill, and the subsequent conveyance to him by Bellew to secure such advances, is justly and equitably entitled to a lien upon the mill forty, as against the owners of the land, for the amount of the advances made, not exceeding the sum of $6,500, mentioned in the contract ; and I think he is so entitled. �It is claimed by the defendant land-owners that the contract with Bellew was an entirety, and that Bellew having failed to perform it, and a judgment of a state court having gone against him, foreclos- ing and cutting off his rights under the contract, and Hubbard's interests being subject and subsequent to those of Bellew, he was also substantially barred by the judgment against Bellew. But it is quite clear that this view cannot be maintained. Bellew had six years in which to eut the timber from the land and pay for it. At first he was to pay for the timber in advance of cutting from time to time, but afterwards this condition was waived, and the contract modified 80 as to allow him to eut the timber and pay for it and the land after- wards. But it is evident from the contract that as soon as Bellew had selected a forty for his mill site and built a good substantial mill upon it, worth $9,000, he was entitled to a deed conveying the title to that forty. AU this he did in the fall of 1875 and winter of 1875-6, soon after the contract was made. There is no evidence that up to that time he had broken his contract, and it seems quite clear that under the contract, when he had built the mill, he had earned the right to a deed of the mill site, and after a deed should be given he had the right to give a first mortgage to Hubbard, to secure the $6,500 of advances. If at that time Bellew had asked for a conveyance of the mill forty he would have been entitled to reoeive it. It would have been the duty of the land-owners, under the ��� �
