The respondent in this appeal has presented no brief: We infer, from the brief presented on the part of the state, that the question of law involved is as to whether Laws 1887, c. 170, § 3, is invalid because the subject of the law is not expressed in its title, or because the law embraces more than one subject. The act is entitled “An act giving labor the right of first lien, and material furnished a second lien, on all property.” Section 1 declares the right of first lien on account of any labor which contributes to the con
We are of the opinion that the latter provision is properly germane to the subject expressed in the title, and that the law was not unconstitutional. It requires no very liberal construction of the constitutional- provision to sustain the law in this particular, although a liberal construction is always adopted in such cases. If the order discharging the defendant was based upon this ground, as we assume it to have been, it was erroneous, and it is reversed.