
    Eli French and al. versus William J. Moulton.
    The implied contract to pay for labor and materials furnished for the repair of a mill which a minor was operating, and continued to operate after he became of age, is not a contract for real estate within the proviso of the statute of 1845, chap. 166.
    This is an action of assumpsit against the defendant, and is presented to the full court on the following’ statement of facts:
    The plaintiff, in the summer of 1852, performed blacksmith’s work upon a mill which the defendant was operating. The plaintiff’s labor and materials were incorporated into, the mill in the repairs of the same, and became a part of the mill, and the defendant used and occupied said mill in the manufacture of lumber, from the summer of 1852 to September 9th, 1854, when it was burned.
    The defendant was a minor at the time the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued, and pleads his minority in the case.
    
      R. H. Vose, attorney for plaintiff.
    
      N. M. Whitmore, attorney for defendant.
   Tenney, C. J.

This action is brought to recover compensation for blacksmith work done on and for a mill, which the defendant was carrying on; the plaintiff’s labor and materials were incorporated into the mill by way of repairs thereon, the defendant occupied the mill in the manufacture of lumber for some time after he became of age, though the labor was done and materials furnished before that time. The defence is infancy. The question is, whether the implied contract of the defendant to pay for the plaintiff’s services and materials was for real estate, so as to come within the proviso in the statute of 1845, chap. 166. It is very manifest that this question must be answered in the negative.

Plaintiff nonsuit.  