
    MENERY v. BACKUS.
    1. Log-Lien Proceedings — Apportionment oe Time Employed.
    An employe of one operating a sawmill and a farm, whose time is kept but not apportioned, is entitled to a lien upon the products of the mill for the labor performed thereon, and to that end may estimate the time devoted to that branch of the work.
    2. Same — Form oe Verdict — Appeal.
    An objection that the verdict in a log-lien proceeding, declaring the amount returned for the plaintiff to be a lien upon the property, does not expressly find that such amount is due for work and labor performed upon the products described in the declaration, as required by the statute (3 How. Stat. § 8427Q, will be disregarded, when raised for the first time on appeal.
    Error to Alcona; Simpson, J.
    Submitted November 8, 1895.
    Decided December 10, 1895.
    Proceedings under tlie log-lien law by George Menery against Absalom Backus, Jr. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    O. II. Smith (II. J. Kelley, of counsel), for appellant.
    
      M. J. Oonnine and J. II. Killmaster, for appellee.
   McGeath, C. J.

Morrill Bros, were operating a sawmill, lumber camp, and farm. The farm, timber land, and products belonged to defendant. Plaintiff was engaged in and about the mill, in the lumber camp, and upon the farm, and claimed a lien on the products of the mill for the work done in camp and about the mill. His time had been kept, but was not apportioned; and the objection raised is that he was not able to state the whole time that he was employed upon the products sought to be charged. A recitation of the testimony would serve no good purpose. Plaintiff was compelled to estimate the-proportion of time which was devoted to the several departments of work, and did apportion it. The case is not different in principle from any case where no time is kept, and plaintiff is called upon to give the time employed. The question is one of fact for the jury, and was •submitted under proper instructions.

Objection is made that the form of the verdict does not follow the statute. The bill of exceptions recites that—

“The jury returned into court, and find for plaintiff, -and say that is a lien for the whole amount upon the .property, and that their verdict is for $110.84.
“By Mr. Kelley: ‘I would like to have the jury polled.’
“Thereupon the jury is polled, and each man returns the amount of his verdict as $110.84, and that the same is a lien.”

The amount found was some $30 less than the whole account for labor. No question was raised as to the form of the verdict, and none as to the entry of judgment, which is in form under the statute.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.  