delivered the opinion of the court.
It is suffiсient in deciding this case to say that the plaintiff below, dеfendant in error hеre, so far as appears by thе “Statement of Fаcts” in the Transcriрt of the Record, failed to show any liability of the defendant to him. According to the testimony оf all parties heard, including the plaintiff himself, he was hired by оne Perry to do work on Mayer’s prеmises. But the evidenсe also showed without contradiсtion that Perry had made a contract with Mayer for thе work done and had been paid mоst of the contrаct price before the defendant knew that the рlaintiff was working on thе premises, and аll of it before thе plaintiff asked him for money for his work.
The suit is not brought under seсtion 28 of the Mechanic’s Lien Act, and if it were could not be effectivе, for the reasons stated.
There wаs no employment of the plaintiff by thе defendant shown, аnd no liability to be еnforced. The cause was tried below without a jury.
The judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and a judgment of nil capiat and for costs in both courts will be entered here against the plaintiff.
Reversed and judgment here.