Bennett

This is an action for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. In the complaint it is averred that *338 plaintiffs contracted and agreed with defendants “to furnish in the addition to, and in the alteration of, the certain building heretofore erected on said premises by said Davis, certain materials, to wit, certain mantels, tiles, and grates,' and the appurtenances thereof; and also the labor required in the addition of the same to, and the erection of the same in, said building as a part thereof,” etc.

The mantels and other materials were furnished and were erected in the house of defendant Davis, and the only question presented here is whether plaintiffs, in the purview of the mechanics’ lien law, are material-men or original contractors.

As the court found in favor of the lien, the inquiry resolves itself into this: Is there evidence upon which the conclusion can be sustained? One was a woodejn mantel, and the other what the witness called a tiling mantel.

Schutte testified that a tiling mantel is composed of numerous parts, from one hundred and fifty to ten thousand. “The tiling is placed in the building by attaching it to the brickwork and to the chimney. It is not nailed;…