Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/129

 The allegation is that it was “an itemized statement of his account.” An itemized account, as those words are generally—and, so far as we know, universally—used, includes the names of the parties, debtor and creditor, the respective items for which the credit was given, with the dates and amounts charged for each item; and the total amount. In an itemized account for threshing, a description of the land on which the grain was grows would be entirely foreign. It would be no necessary or. usual part of such an account. The pleader having alleged the character of the statement filed, under familiar rules of interpretation, we cannot presume that anything else was filed. Yet the statute is peremptory in requiring the statement to contain a description of the land on which the grain was grown, in order to entitle a party to the lien given by the statute. The necessity for such statement, particularly for the protection of subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers, is perfectly apparent. In this case it may be true that respondent performed all the acts alleged in the com- plaint, and yet if appellant subsequently came into possession of the wheat by purchase from the owner, or by way of security, its title would be perfect, as against respondent.

Again, under the statute, it is not the party owning a threshing machine who is entitled to the lien, nor yet the party operating such machine, but it is the person “owning and operating a threshing machine.” The only allegation in the complaint upon that point is as follows: “That plaintiff was at all times hereinafter mentioned doing business of running and operating a threshing machine.” That falls far short of an allegation of ownership in the machine. It is just as consistent with possession in any other capacity. An allegation much stronger than in this case was held to be an insufficient allegation of ownership in Rugg v. Hoover, 28 Minn. 407, 10 N. W. Rep. 473. We think the com- plaint was vulnerable to the demurrer on both these points.

Another insuperable objection is urged against the complaint, which we are compelled to notice, in view of what may hereafter appear by way of an amended complaint. Plaintiff does not