This is a suit by the Halloran-Judge Trust Company to foreclose a mortgage or deed of trust upon an irrigation system in the state of Idaho. The Boise-Payette Dumber Company is a defendant, and by cross-complaint seeks to foreclose a lien for material furnished by it to one Wilkie, who had a contract made on the 30th of December, 1919, by which he was to perform the labor and furnish the "material necessary in the completion of the irrigation system. The trust deed or mortgage of the plaintiff was executed on December 31, 1919, and recorded on the 26th of January, 1920. Thereafter, and about April 1, 1920, the Boise-Payette Lumber Company furnished "Wilkie lumber and material to be used, and which was used, in the completion of the irrigation system, and subsequently perfected a valid lien therefor.

[1] The only question for decision is whether the lien of the BoisePayette Lumber Company relates back to and attaches at the date of the contract with Wilkie, and is therefore prior in right to the lien of plaintiff’s mortgage, or whether it attaches from the time the company commenced to furnish the material, and is therefore subject to the mortgage lien. Its solution depends upon the interpretation of the Mechanic’s Lien Law of the state of Idaho, which, so far as material here, provides:

This statute has been construed by the Supreme Court of the state in Pacific Savings, Loan & Building Co. v. Dubois, 11 Idaho, 319 , 83 Pac. 513 . This was a contest between a mortgagee and a mechanic’s lien claimant, and, as stated by the court, the question before it for decision was:

And in disposing of it the court, after referring to the several provisions of the statute, said:

[2] This being the construction of the highest court of the state, it is controlling here. Cross v. Allen, 141 U. S. 528 , 12 Sup. Ct. 67, 35 L. Ed. 843 ; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 91 , 20 Sup. Ct. 33, 44 L. Ed. 84 . Defendant has referred to several authorities, including that of McClain v. Hutton, 131 Cal. 132 , 61 Pac. 273 , 63 Pac. 182 , 622, and Bloom on Mechanics’ Eiens, §§ 488 and 489; but, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of the state of Idaho, it is needless to comment on decisions from other states.

The decree is therefore affirmed.