
    STOUT, MILLS & TEMPLE v. A. T. SWANEY ET AL.
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1879.
    I. MECHANIC’S LIEN. On land, mill, and machinery, in whose favor.
    A mechanic or undertaker, founder or machinist who furnishes machinery for a mill, has a. mechanic’s lien upon the land upon which the mill was erected, including building, machinery, etc. [See Code, see. 3531, and notes 5, 17.]
    3. SAME. Enforced by attachment regardless of merits when not objected to by motion or plea.
    When a person having- a mechanic’s lien on property sues out an attachment to enforce the same, which is levied, the complainant may have the property attached sold for the satisfaction of the debt, where no motion or plea has been made or filed to discharge the attachment. [See Code, sec. 53Ü6, and notes.]
    Cited with approval: Boyd v. Martin, 9 Heis., 383; Robinson v. Brown, 1 Bax., 307; Brown v. Jacobi, 10 Heis., 335.
    3. SAME. Exists for one year; attaches when machinery furnished. Question reserved as to when furnished.
    In this case the point was made that a mechanic’s lien did’ not exist, because tire suit was brought more than a year after the machinery was furnished. This contention was founded on the fact that complainants shipped the machinery by railroad to the depot near where it was to- be used more than a year before the bill was filed, but defendants refused to receive it, and did not receive it until within one year before the bill was filed, because sent before the time, and they were not ready to use it. But this question was not decided by the court- — the decision being put upon the ground stated in the last syllabus.
   Deaderick, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This bill was filed to enforce a mechanic’s lien for machinery furnished for a mill. An attachment was issued and levied upon the land upon which the mill was erected, including building, machinery, etc. The chancellor rendered a decree against defendants and directed the sale of the attached property, from which .they have appealed to this court.

Tbe argument for defendants is chiefly addressed to the point that the bill was filed more than a year after the machinery was furnished, and that complainants are, there; fore, not entitled to a mechanic’s lien, and that the attachment is inoperative on this account.

There is evidence in the record to show that, although the machinery was sent by railroad to the depot, near which it was to be used, more than twelve months before the bill was filed, that defendants refused to receive it, because sent before the time, and they were not ready to use it, and did not receive it until within twelve months of the filing of the bill.

But no motion or plea having been made or filed to discharge the attachment, it has been held by this court that complainant, in cases like the present, may have the property attached sold for the satisfaction of his debt. [Boyd v. Marlin], 9 Heis., 883; [Robinson v. Brown], 1 Baxter, 207; Brown v. Jacobi, 10 Heis., 835.

Let the chancellor’s decree be affirmed.  