or had actually purchased it prior thereto, or at any time. No attempt is made in the complaint to allege that the seed was furnished to be sown on any land either rented or occupied by Bradley. In paragraph 6 of the complaint it is averred "that the said Clayton E. Bradley sowed said seed wheat on the north half of section 32," etc. This naked statement, in the absence of averments showing a use or the right to use the tract for cropping purposes, falls short of meeting the requirement of statute. Nothing is stated inconsistent with the idea that Bradley sowed the seed on section 32 under a mere license to enter, obtained from the owner to enter upon and fulfill a contract to seed the land and furnish the seed, and do no more. If such were the fact, and it is not inconsistent with the complaint, no lien would attach to the crop, even if purchased by Bradley for the express purpose of seeding the land upon which it was sown by him. For this omission in the complaint, as well as that first noticed, the order overruling the demurrer to the complaint must be reversed, and the action must be dismissed as against the appellants. It will be so ordered. All concur.
Robert A. Fox, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Allistair Mackenzie, Defendant and Appellant.
1. Effect of Undertaking Given to Procure Discharge of Attachment.
The giving ef an undertaking under §§ 5009, 5010, Comp. Laws, Dak., to procure a discharge of an attachment, does not merely release the levy but destroys the writ itself, and thereafter, a motion to dissolve the attachment as being irregularly or improvidently issued will not be entertained.
(Opinion Filed November 29, 1890.)
APPEAL from district court, Ramsey county; Hon. Charles F. Templeton, Judge.
James F. O’Brien and W. H. Standish, (O. F. Woodruff, of counsel,) for appellant, Messrs. Cochrane and Fleetham, for respondent.
The case was elaborately briefed on both sides, but as the opinion cites most of the cases they are not noted here.
