McCarthy Lbr. & Const. Co. v. Kinder et al. Appellants cite a number of cases in support of their contention that the statute (section 5538) does not create a lien upon the property. Among the cases cited are, City of Springfield v. Starke, 93 Mo. App. 70; Excelsior Springs v. Ettenson, 120 Mo. App. 215, 96 S. W. 701; City of Carondelet v. Picot, 38 Mo. 125. These cases however have reference to the principle that municipalties, such as a city, which derives its power to tax from the general statute, have no authority to create a tax lien by ordinance when the statute gives them no authority to do so, and are not pertinent to the point at issue in this case. We think the taxes sued for were a lien against the premises described in the petition, and that the judgment was for the right party. The Commissioner recommends that it be affirmed. PER CURIAM:-The foregoing opinion of NIPPER, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. The judgment of the circuit court is accordingly affirmed. Reynolds, P. J., Allen and Becker, JJ., concur. McCARTHY LUMBER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, V. LEE F. KINDER and EVA KINDER, his wife, ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIA TION, a Corporation, and OSCAR L. HAILE, Appellants. St. Louis Court of Appeals. Opinion Filed November 3, 1920. 1. MECHANICS' LIENS: Lien Statement: Lumping Contract Price: Sufficiency. Where a mechanics' lien statement is as definite as the contract under which labor and materials were furnished, it is sufficient, and a lumping price having been agreed upon, no other price could have been specified so that the account would have been a just and true one. 2. : : -: Original Contractor's Statement of Account: Detail of Items Not Required. Where a lien is filed by the 3. 4. 5. McCarthy Lbr. & Const. Co. v. Kinder et al. original contractor who has specifically agreed with the owner to erect a building in accordance with plans and specifications for a certain price, and the lien statement is as definite as the contract, a detailed statement of the items of material and labor that entered into the improvement is not required, as the owner knew what he bargained for when he agreed on the price and need not be apprised of the basis of the charge by an enumeration of the items of material that went into the construction or improvements as agreed upon. -: -: Apprising Owner and Public of Nature and Amount of Lien Sufficient. A mechanics' lien statement which fairly apprised the owner and the public of the nature and amount of the demand asserted as a lien, is sufficient. - Lienable Items: Articles to be made Part of Building Lienable. Where items in the lien account were for bookcases, skirt box and table, and were built especially to fit particular places in the building and made especially for that purpose and were furnish. ed like other wood-work, and it was the owner's intention that these articles be made a part of the building, then they are lienable. : : : Fixtures. The statutes relating to mechanics' lien clearly intend that it shall extend to whatever is a fixture under the broader rule applicable between heir and personal representative, vendor and vendee, mortgagor and mortgagee, rather than those things which a tenant may remove at the end of his term, and where there is a real or constructive annexation of the article to the realty and such article is adapted to the use or purpose of the realty with which it is connected, and it is the intention of the party making the annexation that the chattel shall become a permanent accession to the freehold, then such would be a part thereof within the mechanics' lien laws. 6. APPELLATE PRACTICE: Evidence: Conflicting: Finding of Trial Court Conclusion. Where there is a conflict in the testimony the question became one of fact for the court sitting as a jury, to determine; and when such fact is found adversely to appellant, and there is substantial testimony to sustain it, the appellate court is without authority to interfere. 7. MECHANICS' LIENS: Lienable Items: Extras: Added as Part of Original Contract: Properly Included in Lien Account. Items which were added as extras, if they were added as a part of the original contract, then such items were properly included in the lien account. McCarthy Lbr. & Const. Co. v. Kinder et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Francois County.Hon. Peter H. Huck, Judge. AFFIRMED. Jerry B. Burks for appellants. (1) (a) The first two items of the lien account were insufficient as the basis for a lien, and the court therefore erred in refusing defendants' Instructions 1 and 2. Even in cases of lump contracts the items must in some manner specify or identify the material and labor used, then to this may be added the contract price. So held in the following cases: Rude v. Mitchell, 97 Mo. 365 at 372-4; Bruns v. Capstick, 46 Mo. App. 397, 401-2; Baker v. Smallwood, 161 Mo. App. 257, 259; Mitchell Planing Mill Co. v. Allison, 138 Mo. 50, 58; Smith v. Haley, 41 Mo. App. 611, 620; McMillan & Parker v. Ball & Gunning Mill Co. 190 Mo. App. 340, 350; Martin-Welch Hardware Co. v. Spencer, 214 S. W. 417; Grace v. Nesbitt, 109 Mo. 16–19. (b) Even the case of Hilliker v. Francisco et al., 65 Mo. 598, the reasoning of which is somewhat impaired under later decisions, is not sufficient to save these two above mentioned items of the lien account from the rule that the items must designate the kind of material used. In that case the contract designates the material as stone. In the case at bar, no material is designated. (2) The rule requiring the items of the lien account to be set forth so as to show them lienable, with equal force to original contractors. Rude v. Mitchell, 97 Mo. 374; Mitchell, Planing Mill Co. v. Allison, 138 Mo. 54, 55. (3) The items of the lien account for table, skirt box, bookcases, water front for stove and express charges were not lienable, and so known to plaintiff at the time it filed the lien account. The evasive answers and artful dodging of witness McCarthy, for plaintiff, demonstrates this fact. This vitiates the entire lien account. Carthage Sup. 206 M. A.-19 McCarthy Lbr. & Const. Co. v. Kinder et al. Lime-stone Co. v. Central Meth. Church, 156 Mo. App. 672; Dougherty & Moss L. Co. v. Rothbaum, 156 Mo. App' 251; Kittrick v. Hopkins, 114 Mo. App. 436. The items aforesaid not being lienable, the court erred in refusing to give defndants' Instructious 3 and 4. (4) The lien account was not filed within six months after the accrual of same. The last item of the account was for extras and was an independent contract, and will not toll the statute, and the court erred in refusing Instruction 5, requested by defendants. Kern v. Paff, 44 Mo. App. 35; Grace v. Nesbit, 109 Mo. 16. (5) (a) The court erred in admitting in evidence the first two items of the lien account, over the objections and exceptions of defendants. See cases under points 1 and 2. (b) And the court erred in permitting plaintiff to introduce evidence touching the solvency of the bond entered into between defendants, Kinder, and building and loan association, for the reason these matters were wholly irrelevant to the matters at issue. (6) The court erred in refusing to give Instruction 6, requested by defendants. The evidence on the part of defendants shows that plaintiff was to take a second deed of trust for the deferred payments. This was a waiver of the lien, and it was error for the court to disregard this theory of the case. Baumhoff v. St. L. & K. T. Ry. Co., 171 Mo. 129. (7) The court erred in refusing to give Instruction 7, requested by defendants. Schulenberg v. Hayden, 146 Mo. 594. (8) The petition in this case seeks to recover on express contract and also on quantum meruit for extras, in one and the same count. This was wrong and the court erred in overruling defendants' objections to the introduction of evidence under said petition. Grace v. Nesbit, 109 Mo. 15; Bruns v. Capstick, 46 Mo. App. 398; Hoagland v. Railway, 39 Mo. 458. J. P. Cayce for respondent. (1) Where the work was done or the materials furnished under an entire contract to do or furnish the same for a gross sum, it is not necessary that the claimant in McCarthy Lbr. & Const. Co. v. Kinder et al. his lien statement itemized his account. Mechanics' Liens, 27 Cyc, 188; National Press Brick Co. v. Lester Construction Co., 177 Mo. App. 573; Busso v. Fette, 55 Mo. App. 453; Hilliker v. Francisco, 65 Mo. 598; Holland v. Cundiff, 96 Mo. App. 1. c. 80; Mitchell Plaining Mill Co. v. Allison, 138 Mo. 50; Marshall v. Hall, 200 S. W. 774. (2) Where the design of a house calls for a combination of articles with the realty in a harmonious scheme, the articles will be deemed part of the realty although not actually annexed. Fixtures-19 Cyc, 1037 and 1048; Mechanics' Liens, 27 Cyc, 37 and 38; Reilly v. Hudson, 62 Mo. 383 (this was a mechanic's lien for "an ordinary cooking range"). (3) A mechanic does not waive his statutory lien by an agreement to accept other things than money in payment for the work done or materials furnished, unless that agreement is performed by making payment under the terms of the contract. Baumhoff v. Railroad Co., 171 Mo. 120; Globe Light & Heat Co.v. Doud, 47 Mo. App. 439. (4) The mechanic's lien is entitled to priorty over the deed of trust, as to all of the items in the lien account. Sec. 8219, R. S. 1909; Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Elevator Co., 165 Mo. 171; Dubois' Admr. v. Wilson's Trustee, 21 Mo. 213; Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Bormans, 19 Mo. App. 664; Great Western Planing Mill v. Bormans, 19 Mo. App. 671. When work or material is done or furnished, all going to the same general purpose, or as parts of a general improvement of the property, though such work be done or ordered at different times, yet as the several parts form an entire whole, or are so connected together as to show that the parties had it in contemplation that the whole should form but one and not distinct matters of settlement, the whole account must be considered as a unit, or as being a single contract, and may be included in one lien account. Bruns v. Braun, 35 Mo. App. 344; Flanagan Bros. v. O'Connell, 88 Mo. App. 8; Kearney v. Wurdeman, 33 Mo. App. 447; Pulliss v. Hoffmann, 28 Mo. App. 671. "It is permissible to embrace in an account filed as a lien items for work on the same building under |