No. 10.

#### Douglass et al. v. McCord et al.

Opinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.

This case was here at a former term — 12 Bradwell, 278. The bill as originally framed, was upon the theory that complain ints had a lien as subcontractors, and asitappeared there was but little due under the contract, it was held the decree in favor of complainants for the full amount of their bill could not stand. After the cause was remanded the circuit court granted leave to amend the bill so as to charge that the contract ivas made directly with the lot owners for the materials in question, in pursuance of a provision in the contract between the lot owners and the builder that the former should pay for the materials used in the construction of the house to the parties furnishing the same. Hpon the second hearing the issues were found for complainants and a decree was entered in the usual form for §393.77. The sole question for decision is whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the decree.

Affirmed.

Attorneys, for appellants, Mr. S. R. Reed; for appellee. Mr. W. G. Cloyd and Messrs. Lodge & Huston.

Opinion by

Wall, P. J.

Judge below, C. B. Smith.