Counsel for appellee, in brief and argument, assert: "If there is any law in support of any of the propositions in appellant's brief we have been unable to find it." Notwithstanding this, there is a decision of this court, in the case of Mills Lumber Co. v. Heard et al., 134 So. 35, which is conclusive of the points of decision involved upon this appeal. The case at bar is identical, and, as the phrase goes, "on all fours," with the Mills Lumber Co. Case, supra. The facts are identical in each case.

Abercrombie v. Vandiver, 126 Ala. 513, 28 So. 491; Roberson v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 237 Ala. 279, 186 So. 727. A request for work and labor does not necessarily result in a promise implied in law to pay therefor. Alexander v. Alabama Western R., supra; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Moore, supra; Alabama Western R. v. Bush, supra; Mills Lbr. Co. v. Heard, 24 Ala. App. 270, 134 So. 35; Lindsey Lbr. Export Co. v. Faile, 24 Ala. App. 520, 139 So. 102; Id., 224 Ala. 261, 139 So. 104. The mere fact of receipt of benefit does not necessarily imply a promise to pay therefor. Thorn v. Roman, 89 Ala. 379, 7 So. 428; Alabama Western R. v. Bush, supra. No case should be submitted to the jury unless there are appropriate questions for decision by the jury.

Under these circumstances the holding has been that the statute giving a lien for wages does not apply, and that a lien cannot be fastened upon the timber or lumber of the owner who had no part in the employment. Mills Lumber Co. v. Heard, 24 Ala. App. 270, 271, 134 So. 35, followed in Lindsey Lumber Export Co. v. Faile, 24 Ala. App. 520, 139 So. 102, certiorari denied 224 Ala. 261, 139 So. 104. Such in effect also was the holding of this Court in Borden v. King Mill Lumber Co., 214 Ala. 308, 107 So. 455. See, also, Allen v. Clayton, 208 Ala. 29, 93 So. 658. Under these authorities and the facts, as agreed upon, we conclude plaintiffs were not entitled to recover.