Mechanics’ Liens—Constitutional Law—Bond of Contractor.—Section 1183 of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring a bond does not violate constitutional principles prohibiting the impairment of the right to contract, or provisions forbidding deprivation of property without due process of law, or class legislation.

.Id.—Appeal—Harmless Error in Findings.—In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, a finding that contractors, designated as a “company,” were a copartnership, even if such finding be without the issues raised by the pleadings, is not prejudicial, where the plaintiff is not looking to the contractor’s sureties for satisfaction, but only to the premises and to the owner, since in such an action the contractor is not a necessary party.

Id.—Foreclosure Suit — Parties — Contractor not a Necessary Party.—A contractor is not a necessary party to a suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.

Id.—Foreclosure of Lien—Parties—Misnomer.—A mistake in naming a contractor in a claim of lien is immaterial unless the misnomer misled the owner tojhis prejudice.

Evidence—Partnership Certificate—Original or Certified Copy.— Under subdivision 6 of section 1918 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original certificate from the county clerk’s files, giving the names of the persons composing a partnership named as a company is admissible in evidence, and there is no merit in the contention that a certified copy is the only evidence.

Id.—Hearsay.—Hearsay evidence as to the names of the persons composing a partnership is properly excluded.

Agency—Evidence.—The agency of an individual for a partnership was properly shown by evidence that one who contracted with the partnership transacted that business with the individual whose authority was in question, that the same individual signed a contract for the erection of a building as manager of the partnership, that he signed checks for the payment of the men employed by the partnership, and that he managed the business and ordered all the material for use on the same building.