Opinion of the Court. could be sold and removed to pay the amount thereof, and under the foreclosure the purchaser bought subject to that existing right. He thus obtained a title under which his building could be sold from under him and removed from the land. Under the amended statute the court may sell all the property, land and building together, and return to the owner the value of the land and the surplus arising from the building after payment of the liens. As the liens were in existence when the mortgage was foreclosed, we think the purchaser took title subject to the right of the legislature, in making a reasonable and proper amendment of the law, to provide in foreclosing the liens, for the sale of the whole property and the return to the owner of the lot of the full value thereof in money, instead of allowing him to keep the lot and have the building thereon sold and removed. The plaintiff in error's property was already in the grasp of the statute creating the liens when the mortgage was foreclosed, and that fact is the material one for consideration with reference to the statute and its amendment. The plaintiff in error asserts that this change in the law rendered the mortgage security less valuable, and that, therefore, it impaired the obligation of the contract and was void. This is mere assertion, and we do not assent to its correctness. A mortgage which is already subject to the right of subsequent lienors, who furnish materials or labor in the erection of a building, to sell the same and have it removed for the payment of the liens, is not in our judgment reduced in value by the provision contained in the amendment under consideration. Some reference has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court of North Dakota, decided before the foreclosure of the mortgage, and it has been said that it is therein decided that section 5480 of the Compiled Laws of 1887, which, as we have stated, is identical with section 666 of chapter 31, above mentioned, (in force when the mortgage was executed,) does not give any lien as against a mortgagee or one representing him in a case like this, because such lien could not be enforced without a demolition of the building, and in such case no lien is given, while by the latest statute it is asserted that the lien is given, and also an effective means of enforcing it. In brief, it Opinion of the Court. is urged that a lien is given by the last statute as against a mortgagee or his representative, in a case where it did not exist when the mortgage was made, as the Supreme Court of the State decided, and that such decision had been given when the mortgage was foreclosed and the property bid in by the mortgagee and then assigned to the plaintiff in error, and it is claimed that the subsequent statute giving the lien was a clear violation of the contract as against the plaintiff in error. James River Lumber Company v. Danner, 3 N. D. 470, is the authority referred to for this contention, but an examination of the facts and the opinion of the court therein shows that no such proposition was decided. In that case there was a mortgage upon the whole of the property, which consisted of a lot with a brewery erected thereon. A fire occurred which to some extent damaged, without destroying, the building. It was therefore repaired, and for the materials for such repairs and for the labor expended on the building liens were filed, and the claim was made that they were liens superior to the mortgage thereon at the time the materials were furnished and the labor performed. This the court held was not the true construction of section 5480; that while that section gives the lienor the right to sell the building and the purchaser the right to have it removed, yet, no authority was given to sell the entire building to pay the lien of one who had only repaired it while a recorded mortgage existed against the land at the time he made the repairs. It was said that a lien for repairs upon a building covered by a mortgage at the time of the repairs would not justify a sale and removal of the building as against such mortgage; that priority of lien was given in cases where the whole erection might be sold and removed without unlawfully encroaching upon the right of the mortgagee of the land, and that a priority of lien existed only when a new structure had been put upon the land subsequently to the execution of the mortgage, and the one who claimed a prior lien must have contributed to the erection of such building by the furnishing of materials or the doing of work. And the court further held that as the work on the partially destroyed building was not begun until some time after the recording of the mortgage on the Opinion of the Court. whole property, the lienor could not procure a sale of the whole building and give to the purchaser the right to remove it, and as this could not be done as against the mortgagee, the priority of lien did not exist. The court, however, recognizes in terms the existence of a lien under that statute, when a new structure has been put upon the land subsequently to the execution of the mortgage, if the person claiming the lien has contributed to the erection of the building by furnishing materials therefor or performing labor thereon. In this case, the building did not exist at the time the mortgage was executed, and the liens were filed to secure payment for the materials used in its construction and the labor performed upon it, and no decision of the Supreme Court of North Dakota has been called to our attention holding that under such circumstances there would not have been a lien upon the building in favor of the mechanics and prior to that of the mortgage executed before its erection. In such case as this it is clear that under the act in force when the mortgage was executed and when the labor was performed, a lien on the building was created by virtue of that act, and that the building could have been sold under it and the purchaser would have had the right to remove it notwithstanding, in order to do so, he would have been compelled to demolish the entire building. One of the amendments contained in the last statute, which provides a means for the enforcement of a lien by the sale of the whole premises in the case of repairs upon a building already covered by a mortgage, was probably passed because of the above decision of the Dakota court, and we need not concern ourselves as to its validity, because the plaintiff in error does not occupy such a position as to enable it to raise that question, the whole building in this case having been erected subsequently to the mortgage. The same may be said as to any question which might upon other facts be raised because of the cutting off of an existing mortgage not yet due and the (claimed) impairment of the obligation of a contract by the sale of the premises under the provisions of the amended statute. The mortgage in this case was past due and had been foreclosed and the land sold in 1894, subject to the lien on the Opinion of the Court. building provided by the statute then in existence. One who does not belong to the class that might be injured by a statute cannot raise the question of its invalidity. Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305; Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114, 118; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, 283. The amendments to the old section 667, relating to the bringing of such an action as this, are simply of the same nature as those above discussed, amplifying to some extent, but not materially, the powers of the court as to the remedy. The decision of the main question in this case is fatal to the rights claimed by the plaintiff in error, and the judgment must, therefore, be Affirmed. ARMIJO v. ARMIJO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. No. 243. Argued April 16, 17, 1901.-Decided May 13, 1901. The act of April 7, 1874, c. 80, entitled "An act concerning the practice in territorial courts, and appeals therefrom" constitutes the only right of review by this court on appeals from territorial courts; and in this case, in the absence of any findings by the Supreme Court of the Territory, and the court being without anything in the nature of a bill of exceptions, and there being nothing on the record to show that error was committed in the trial of the cause, this court has nothing on which to base a reversal of the judgment of the court below, and affirms that judgment, THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. J. H. McGowan for appellant. Mr. Neill B. Field for appellee. MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the court. This action was commenced on February 13, 1897, by the Opinion of the Court. appellee Justo R. Armijo against the appellant in the district court of Bernalillo County in the Territory of New Mexico, for the purpose of recovering the sum of $9434.44 as a balance due for services rendered during the five years prior to January 1, 1897. The defendant filed a plea of the general issue and also one of set-off. Thereafter the defendant moved to refer the case to a referee on the ground that the trial of the action would involve the taking of a long account, and the motion was granted over the objection of the plaintiff. A trial was had before the referee, who on August 18, 1898, filed his report in the clerk's office recommending judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $6097.92 and costs. The defendant filed exceptions to the referee's report on September 2, 1898, and on the 15th day of that month the exceptions were overruled, the findings of the referee adopted as the findings of the court and judgment rendered for $6097.92 with interest and costs. The defendant then sued out a writ of error, and also appealed from the judgment to the Supreme Court of the Territory. For the purpose of a review in that court the defendant annexed to the judgment roll a paper purporting to contain certain evidence taken on the trial before the referee, but the same was not authenticated in any manner, either by the certificate of the stenographer who took the testimony, or by the referee, or by the judge of the court in which the trial was had. No compliance with the territorial law or with the rules of the court relating to the authentication of testimony appears by the record. There was no bill of exceptions incorporating therein the testimony and no bill was ever signed by any judge, but on the contrary the record shows that the judge declined and refused to sign, seal or settle the bill of exceptions, and it was then stated in the alleged bill that the defendant excepted to such action of the court. This is all, so far as the record shows, that the defendant did towards procuring a bill of exceptions to be signed. It may be surmised that the court refused to sign the proposed bill of exceptions because of the recital which preceded the commencement of the testimony, in which it was stated that the evidence thereafter set out was all the evidence intro |