I concur.
I concur in the judgment and agree with that portion of the opinion which holds that Mrs. Prescott had waived her lien on the oranges by unconditionally delivering them to Photo when her agents loaded them on the truck.
The only lien Mrs. Prescott could have claimed on the oranges was under the provisions of section 3051 of the Civil Code which makes the lien dependent on possession in cases of this kind. Section 2913 of the Penal Code provides that the voluntary surrender to the owner of the property on which the lien is asserted extinguishes the lien.
It is clear that Photo became the owner of the Holmes oranges when he paid for them in accordance with the terms of his written contract. Mrs. Prescott was never the owner of that fruit. Her lien, therefore, was extinguished when she delivered unconditional possession to Photo and it could not be revived by her subsequently taking possession of the property. (See, Davis v. Young, 75 Cal. App. 359 [242 Pac. 743]; Covington v. Grant, 82 Cal. App. 749 [256 Pac. 213]; Lundblade v. Pierce, 95 Cal. App. 192 [272 Pac. 329]; Jewett v. City *356Transfer & Storage Co., 128 Cal. App. 556 [18 Pac. (2d) 351] ; C. I. T. Corp. v. Biltmore Garage, 3 Cal. App. (2d) (Supp.) 757 [36 Pac. (2d) 247].)
The exact terms of the transaction involving the delivery to Photo of the sixteen boxes of oranges belonging to Mrs. Prescott are not at all clear. The delivery was voluntarily made by Mrs. Prescott’s foreman and the circumstances point to a sale of that fruit on credit which would not support the charge of the theft of that fruit. However, the sixteen boxes of oranges did not have sufficient value to support the conviction of grand theft. (Sec. 487, Pen. Code.)