Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/641

 in the usual way, and he does not make out a prima facie case by proving their value according to regular rules. To make out a case for recovery for such work and materials so furnished, he must prove how much the result of his work had benefited the defendant; he must prove what the fair market value of the thing produced by his misdirected work is; and, until he has done that, he has not made out even a prima facie case on which he is entitled to recover anything.” 177 Mass. 594, 59 N. E. 455.

The language of the Massachusetts court is directly applicable here. Tt follows from what has been said that the plaintiffs failed to establish «a cause of action. There was no issue of fact to submit to the jury, and the trial court was correct in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant for a dismissal of the action.

,, and JJ., concur.

, C. J. (specially concurring). I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Christianson on the ground that plaintiffs wholly failed to comply with the terms of the contract for the construction of the well made with the defendant. They wholly and entirely failed to construct a well. A hole in the ground which contains practically no water is not a well.

The alleged well was valueless in the condition in which plaintiffs left.it. It was not a well. The history of the case would seem to indicate that plaintiffs have not acted in good faith under the contract, nor with an earnest endeavor to perform it, and have wholly and entirely failed to construct a well such as by the terms of the contract they agreed to construct.