
    The Long Island Brick Company vs. Frank W. Arnold.
    One who is in possession of land under a contract of sale with the legal owner thereof is not the owner of the land within the meaning of Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 177, § 1, as amended by Pub. Laws R. 1. cap. 696, § 1, of mechanics’ liens.
    ■Where a contract for the erection of a building had been made with the vendee of land in possession thereof under the agreement of sale, a petition was preferred against the vendor to enforce a lien for materials furnished in the erection of the building against the land and building and against the interest of the vendor therein;
    
      Meld, that the petition could not be sustained, since'the contract for the erection of the building had not been made with the vendor who was the owner of the land.
    Even if the vendee be regarded as the equitable owner of the land within the meaning of the statute, a lien could not be enforced against his interest in the land and building in a proceeding where the petition did not run against him, nor seek to subject his interest to a lien.
    
      Petition for a mechanic’s lien.
    The prayer of the petition was that a lien might be enforced against the land and buildings described in the petition, and against the right, title and interest of the said Prank W. Arnold therein.
    
      Stephen O. Edwards, for petitioner.
    
      Nathan W. Littlefield & Walter It. Stiness, for respondent.
    
      January 12, 1894.
   Per Curiam.

This is a petition for a lien for materials furnished in the erection of a building on a lot of land described in the petition on the right, title and interest of the respondent Prank W. Arnold as the owner of the land in fee simple.

The testimony discloses that the contract for the erection of the building was made, not with Prank W. Arnold, but with William H. Arnold to whom Prank W. Arnold had agreed to convey the land and who was in possession of it under the agreement of sale. As the contract for the building was made with William H. Arnold, who was not at the time the owner of the land, we do not think that the petition can be sustained, since the lien given by Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. Ill, § 1, as amended by Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 696, of March 21, 1888, is in case the building, &c., is constructed, &c., “by contract with or at the request of the owner” of the land.

The petitioner argues that as a contract for the sale of the land to William IT. Arnold had been made, he, as vendee under the contract, may be regarded as the equitable owner of the land within the meaning of the statute; but, even if this be so, the petition does not run against William H. Arnold, nor does it seek to subject his interest in the land to a lien.  