
    Bonsall v. Taylor.
    Where an action was commenced on the 27th day of April, 1857, on a promissory note, and for a mechanic’s lien, which note was dated the 6th of April, 1857, and was payable fifteen days after date, the petition alleged1 that the parties made a contract, under which the plaintiff furnished the defendant certain brick for the erection and reparation of a mill on the premises described in the petition; that the said brick were used in the erection and reparation of the said mill; and were furnished at the dates and prices specified in an account attached to said petition; and that on the Gth day of April, 1857, the parties had a settlement, when there was found to be due the plaintiff, for said brick, the sum of one hundred and sixty-seven dollars and eighty cents, for which amount the defendant executed the note on which suit is brought —attached to which petition, was an account, showing the brick to have been delivered at various dates between the 27th day of September, 1855, and the 3d day of September, 1856; and where the defendant answered, admitting the execution of the note ¡ denying that plaintiff was entitled to a mechanic’s lien; and averring that all the brick, except the -last three items, were furnished more than one year before the commencement of the suit, and were to be, by the terms of the contract, paid for on delivery, that all of said brick furnished before the 22nd day of July, 1856, were furnished on a separate and distinct contract for building the mill; and that the whole matter was closed up, and was distinct and separate from those furnished at and since said last date, and were, by the terms of the contract, to be paid for on delivery, to which answer there was a replication in denial; Held, That in the absence of any other testimony, the note furnished the only evidence of the agreement of the parties as to the time at which the brick were to be paid for; and that the plaintiff was entitled to a mechanic’s lien on the premises.
    
      Appeal from the Muscatine District Court.
    
    Friday, April 9.
    This was an action to recover the amount of a promissory note, and to establish a mechanic’s lien on lot unmber ten, in block sixty-two, in the city of Muscatine, commenced on the 27th day of April, 1857. The note reads as follows :
    “Muscatine, Iowa, April, 6,1857.
    Fifteen days after date, I promise to pay to the order of George ~W. Bonsall one hundred and sixty-seven dollars and eighty cents, for value received, without defalcation or discount, negotiable and payable at the banking house of Isett & Brewster. This note is given for materials furnished for building on lot ten in block sixty-two, Muscatine, Iowa. John Taylor.”
    The petition alleges that defendant made a contract with plaintiff, under which the plaintiff furnished the defendant certain brick, especially for the erection and reparation of a mill on said described real estate, a full account of which said brick, with the dates of delivery, and the prices, is attached to said petition; that said brick were used in the erection and reparation of said building on the lot aforesaid, of which defendant was then the owner; and that on the 6th day of April, 1857, the plaintiff and defendant had a settlement, and there was found to be due the former, for the said brick, the sum of one hundred and sixty-seven dollars and eighty cents, for which amount the defendant then executed the said note on which suit is brought. Attached to the petition, is an account, showing that the brick were delivered at different dates between the 27th of September, 1855, and the 3d of September, 1856, at eight dollars per thousand. The answer admits the execution of the note; denies that plaintiff is entitled to a ■ mechanic’s lien; and avers that all of the brick, except the three last items, were furnished more than one year before the commencement of this suit, and were to be, by the terms of the contract, paid for on delivery, and much of said brick was so paid for on delivery; that all of said brick furnished before the 22d of July, 1856, were furnished on a separate and distinct contract, for building the mill; and that the whole matter was closed up, and was distinct and separate from those furnished at and since the last date, and were, by the terms of the contract, to be paid for on delivery. To this answer, there was a replication in denial. The cause was tried by the court, without a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for the amount found to be due on the note, and establishing a mechanic’s lien on the premises. The defendant appeals.
    
      Henry OHormor, for the appellant.
    
      
      jEiohmcm ¿f* Brother, for tbe appellee.
   Stockton, J.

The promissory note for the materials furnished, is payable fifteen days after date. In the absence of any other evidence of the time when the bricks were to be paid for, we must ascertain the time from the note, as furnishing the only evidence of the agreement of the parties as to the time of payment.

The action for the lien, must be commenced within one year from the time payment should have been made, by virtue of the contract under which the lien is claimed. Code, section 984. In this view of the law of the case, it does not matter that the action was not commenced within one year from the time that the greater portion of the bricks was furnished, as the defendant does not show that by agreement, they were to be paid for at any time different from that shown by the promissory note given for their payment. Eor all the purposes of this suit, and as between the plaintiff and defendant, we must take the time shown by the note, as the contract time of payment; and as the suit was commenced within one year from the time of payment as therein fixed, the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for a mechanic’s lien for the price of the brick, and the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  