¶1 No fraud is alleged or suggested, and it is too well settled to need discussion that no contract can bind a married woman, not a freetrader, unless executed in the manner prescribed by law. Farthing v. Shields, 106 N. C., 289; Weir v. Page, 109 N. C., 220.
¶2 But the counsel for the plaintiff say: “We rely on no promise (express or implied) of the feme defendant, but upon the law, which makes the contract for her, at least to the extent of having satisfaction out of her land to the extent of the value of the materials furnished and labor done in improving it.”
¶3 Counsel say: “The statute on which we rely is that in The Code, ch. 41, § 1, “ Every building built, rebuilt, repaired, together … with the necessary lots on which said building may be situated, … shall be subject to a lien for work done on the same or material furnished.” “Does coverture constitute an exception which will relieve the feme defendant’s land from liability?”
¶4 The argument is an ingenious one, but counsel fail to note the words of the statute which subject the property only to “alien for the payment of all debt contracted for work done on the same,” etc. Evidently the contract must be made, not by the law, but by some one capable of con- *73 traeting. The statute did not intend to give a lien to a person who officiously, and without contract or authority, builds a house upon the land of another.
¶5 The plaintiff, without the authority of the feme defendant, built the house upon her land, and he cannot hold her or her land responsible for his work and labor or material furnished.
¶6 Affirmed.