Spencer

(after stating the facts as .above).

The first objection urged against the complaint in intervention is that while the allegations are reasonably full .and explicit in alleging an enhancement in value of the Henry creek ditch, and the preservation of that particular water right by the indebtedness incurred for the labor and supplies used in its construction, there is nothing by way -of allegation connecting that work with the mortgaged property as a whole, or indicating what, if any, mining claims were rendered more valuable thereby, or what, if any, of the other ditches or water rights covered by the mortgage were thereby improved, or how or to what extent, if at all, the other mortgaged property was conserved or preserved from deterioration or loss or forfeiture by such labor and supplies used in its construction.

This objection is based upon the fact that the mortgaged •property included a number of water rights, ditches, and .mining claims, and was sold as a whole, and that the money *792 remaining in the registry of the court represents a part of the whole property, and not any specific part. It is objected, further, that it is not alleged in the complaint of intervention…