#### Wisconsin Lime & Cement Company, Appellee, v. Thomas A. Reed et al., Appellants. Appeal of Francis W. Jones and Brema M. Jones.

Gen. No. 22,727.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 26, 1917.

Rehearing denied April 9, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Suit by Wisconsin Lime & Cement Company, a corporation, complainant, against Thomas A. Eeed and others, defendants, to establish a mechanic’s lien upon the realty of Francis W. Jones and Brema M. Jones, two of the defendants. From a decree granting a lien for $241.04, with interest, defendants Francis W. Jones and Brema M. Jones appeal.

James I. Ennis and Charles W. Stieeel, for appellants; John B. Heinemann, of counsel.

Edmund W. Froehlich, for appellee.

*480Abstract of the Decision.

Building and construction contracts, § 37 * —when contractor may apply money received from owner in satisfaction - of claims for materials for premises of another person. In a suit to establish. a mechanic’s lien against a contractor and the owners of certain premises for materials furnished by complainant, part of which were used on said premises and part .on other premises by the contractor, where one of the owners gave to the contractor a check payable to the complainant for the exact amount then due subcontractors on said other premises, and which was less than was then due on the former premises to the contractor, without such owner exacting a waiver of complainant’s lien, of which he had at least implied knowledge, and such payment was applied by the contractor and complainant to said other premises, held that the money belonged to the contractor and he had the right to apply it in payment, notwithstanding complainant subsequently gave notice of lien as to said other premises for the purpose of assisting the contractor to collect the money due him from the owner thereof, with the express statement that complainant did not thereby waive the lien as to defendants’ premises.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.