Opinion of the Court-Truitt, J. there simply to have the mortgage examined in connection with the abstract to see if the title to the land described in the mortgage was good and clear of other encumbrances. The important instruction of the court below bearing upon this question is as follows: "If the owner of personal property employs another person to procure a purchaser for said property for a commission, and the latter procures a purchaser who purchases said property from the owner upon terms accepted by the owner, then the latter has a right to the agreed commission. If, under such circumstances, the purchase price, or any part thereof, is delivered to the person procuring said purchaser by the owner, such person has a lien upon said purchase price or any part thereof so delivered to him for his commission, dependent on possession, that is, he has a right to hold the same until his commission is paid." We do not pass upon the question of the correctness of this instruction as a principle of law under other and different facts than appear in this case, but we hold that the testimony here does not bring this question within the purview of such principle. The defendant was not a factor, nor broker in regard to said property, but, giving his testimony the most favorable construction as to the terms of his employment in the premises, he was not in possession of the property, he had no authority to close a sale thereof, no authority to deliver possession of the same to the purchaser or to receive the purchase price therefor. And if, as defendant asserts, the plaintiff, in connection with closing said sale, did put these papers into his hands incidentally, and only to have him examine the mortgage, pass upon its value, and in connection with the abstract, see if the description of the land in the mortgage was correct, and also if it was free of other encumbrances, defendant could not hold them as against the demand of the plaintiff, nor was he entitled to a lien upon them for any commission which might be due from the plaintiff to him in negotiating the sale of said property. The facts in this case clearly show that the defendant did not have a statutory lien upon said note and mortgage under Opinion of the Court-Truitt, J. the laws of this state. (Sec. 3446, Rev. Codes; Mendilie v Snell, 22 Ida. 663, 127 Pac. 550, 43 L. R. A., N. S., 965.) The respondent in his brief, however, admits that under the facts in this case he could not maintain a statutory lien, but contends that he has a common-law lien upon said papers. A number of authorities in support of this position are cited, and we have briefly examined some of them, but do not think those examined sustain his contention. Gresham v. Galveston County (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 796, is a case where the county entered into a specific contract with Gresham and entered an order or decree of the commissioners' court of Galveston county, Texas, appointing him as agent of that county to sell or lease four certain leagues of land granted said county for public school purposes, describing the same; that the said Walter Gresham, in pursuance and by virtue of the power and authority of said order and decree, had sold various tracts of land out of the fourleague grant, and as compensation therefor he was to receive ten per cent commission on all lands sold, and he had power and authority to sell or to lease said lands, or any part thereof, upon such terms and for such prices as to him might seem best for the interests of said county. There were some of the notes taken for sales of these lands that were not collected at the time the controversy about them arose which was terminated by the judgment in said action, and Gresham claimed that he was entitled to hold these notes until certain sums which he claimed as commissions on sales made, for which said notes were taken by him, were paid to him by the county. In that case the court held that he would be entitled to retain the notes while acting in good faith within the scope of his agency for the purpose of collecting them, and in that way securing his commission for their collection. We do not think this case sustains the contention of the respondent. Vinton v. Baldwin, 95 Ind. 433, was a case where there was a contract made between the parties whereby the appellant, Vinton, was appointed agent for the appellee, Baldwin, to procure a loan, and for his services for procuring such loan promised to pay him for said services five per cent commission Opinion of the Court-Truitt, J. on the amount of the loan obtained. After the loan was effected, Vinton refused to pay over to Baldwin a certain part of the money, as he claimed it for his commission in effecting the loan, and in that case it was held that a broker has a lien for his commission, and that an agent or broker having money or property in his hands may retain the amount of his lien out of it. But this is not in point on the question of the lien in the case at bar. In Shaw v. Ferguson, 78 Ind. 547, it was held that, "One who carries on the business of slaughtering hogs and curing, storing and selling the product, as well for himself as for others, and makes advances to such customers, continuously holding possession of their product until he sells it, is a factor, and has a lien on the product of the customer, for services and advances." It will be seen that this authority does not apply to the case at bar, for the reason that the defendants in that case were conducting a slaughtering and pork-packing establishment in the city of Indianapolis Ind., and, as it is held in the case, were factors in the possession of the property delivered to them, and all the proceeds of the products of said slaughtering and packing-house was received by them from their customers. The authorities cited by appellant seem to uniformly hold that a common-law lien is a right to retain the property of another on account of labor performed or money expended upon that specific property. The law as to common-law liens is well and we think fully expressed in American & Eng. Ency. of Law, vol. 19, 2d ed., pp. 8 and 9, as follows: "It is a principle of the common law that every man who has lawful possession of a chattel upon which he has expended his money, labor, or skill, at the request of its owner, thereby enhancing its value, may detain it as security for his debt. This right extends to all such manufacturers, tradesmen, and laborers, as receive chattels for the purpose of repairing or otherwise improving their condition, and also to common carriers, innkeepers, warehousemen, and wharfingers." There are a number of other authorities referred to by appellant in his brief, but we deem it unnecessary to comment Points Decided. . upon them further, for the reason that we hold that the court erred in entering judgment against the plaintiff and in holding that the amount found by the jury for defendant was a lien upon said note and mortgage. And it is hereby ordered that said judgment be modified as follows: Let the court below enter a judgment for the defendant in the sum of $175, with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from date of original judgment and also enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff that he is the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of the specific personal property described in the complaint, and that the same be delivered to him. Costs awarded to the appellant. Sullivan, C. J., concurs. (September 26, 1914.) STATE OF IDAHO, to and for the Use and Benefit of J. F. MCFARLAND et al., Appellants, v. PIONEER NURSERIES CO. and FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., of MARYLAND, Corporations, Respondents. [143 Pac. 405.] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW HORTICULTURAL ACT-TITLE OF PROVISIONS GERMANE. 1. Under the provisions of sec. 16, art. 3, of the state constitution, every act should embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject must be expressed in the title. 2. The purpose of said constitutional provision is to prevent fraud and deception in the enactment of laws, to avoid inconsistent and incongruous legislation and to reasonably notify legislators and the people of the legislative intent in enacting a law. 3. An act of the legislature, known as the Horticultural Act, approved February 27, 1903 (Sess. Laws 1903, p. 347), creates and defines the duties of the state board of horticultural inspection and provides for the appointment of a state horticultural inspector and deputies, provides money for their expenses, and provides penalties for the failure to comply with the provisions of said act. Argument for Appellants. 4. Sec. 8 of said act provides, among other things, that no person, firm or corporation shall engage in or continue in the business of importing and selling within the state any fruit trees, etc., without first making application therefor to said board; and also provides that such application must be in writing and accompanied by a good and satisfactory bond in the sum of $1,000, conditioned on the faithful observance of all the provisions of said act and of the laws of the state of Idaho by such applicant or applicants, their agents and representatives. 5. Sec. 10 of said act provides, among other things, penalties for the violation of said act. 6. Sec. 13 provides that persons shipping fruit trees or trees of any kind, within the state, shall affix to each package, bundle or parcel a distinct mark, stamp or label showing the name of the shipper, the locality where grown and the variety of the tree or shrub. 7. Held, that the title to said act is sufficient to cover every section and provision of said act. 8. Held, that sec. 13 deals directly and primarily with horticultural matters, and comes within the purview of said title and is germane to the subject of horticulture. 9. The bond required to be given under the provisions of said act requires the dealer to fully comply with all the provisions and laws in anywise relating to or concerning nursery stock. 10. Held, that if a dealer violates the provisions of said act in regard to placing the proper name of the variety upon his trees, the sureties on said bond are liable for any damages that may be caused thereby to the amount of the bond. 11. Held, that the provisions of said sec. 13 clearly come within the title to said act and are germane to the subject of horticulture. APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Charles P. McCarthy, Judge. Action to recover damages for falsely labeling fruit trees.. Demurrer to complaint sustained and judgment entered for the defendant. Reversed. J. H. Peterson and T. S. Risser, for Appellants. Section 16, art. 3 of the constitution must be given a reasonable construction. It is sufficient if the act treats of but one general subject, and that subject is expressed in the title, directly or indirectly. The constitution should be liberally |