[1] Mechanics’ Liens—Action to Foreclose—Completion op Contract—Evidence.—In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, testimony that work or labor ceased on the building in question on a given date, that the last work necessary to be done on the building to complete the contract was performed on that date, and that the building was then completed and nothing more was to be done thereon, is equivalent' to testimony that the contract was completed on that date, and from it the trial court was justified in so finding, if it believed such testimony.

[2] Id.—Cessation prom Labor — Constructive Completion.-—The cessation from labor by reason of the actual completion of the contract is not the cessation of labor which, under section 1387 of the Code of Civil Procedure, itself constitutes a constructive completion of the building or contract.

[S] Id.—Conflicting Evidence—Finding—Appeal—Invalid Claims. In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, testimony tending to show that the building was completed at a later date than that testified to by the witnesses for the defendants, and as found by the court, merely raises a conflict in the evidence upon that issue, and the trial court having resolved such conflict in favor of the defendants, the appellate court is concluded by its findings, and claims of lien not filed within ninety days of the date of completion, so found, are ineffective.

[4] Id.—Time for Filing Claims — Substantial Completion.—All that the statute requires, to fix the time from which the right of lien claimants to file their liens begins to run, is that there be, so far as actual completion is concerned, a substantial completion, and, in this case, the testimony shows that there was such a completion, if not more than that.

[5] ID.—One Hundred and Twenty Day Bule—Application of.—■ The rule as to the one hundred and twenty days’ period after cessation from labor within which claims may be filed has no application where there is an actual completion.

[6] Id.—Occupation of Building During Performance of Work— Presumption of Completion.—Where the lien claimants do all their work after the occupation or use by the owner takes place, or while the owner is occupying or using the building, this occupation or use is not such as raises a conclusive presumption of completion under the statute.

[7] Id.—Personal Liability of Owner—Want of Privity.—Where there is no contract, either express or implied, between the owner and the lien claimants for materials furnished and labor performed, such owner cannot be held personally liable therefor.

[8] ID.—Performance at Bequest of Contractor — Pleading — Becovery in Quantum Meruit.—Where, in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, it is alleged in the complaint that the labor bestowed upon and the materials furnished for the building were so bestowed and furnished in pursuance of the contract between the contractor and the owner and were bestowed and furnished at the instance of the contractor, and no issue as to the reasonable value of the labor and the materials is submitted in the form of a common count, no recovery can be had against the owner in quantum meruit.

[9] Id.—Apportionment of Price—Contract Severable.—Where the agreed price for performing a given contract is apportioned t'o each item according to the value thereof and not as one unit, such contract is not an entire one, but is severable. (On petition for rehearing.)