claim intended to be fixed as a lien upon the property, so that he may protect himself in his future dealings with the contractor. The requirements of the law in this respect imposes no hardship upon the party asserting the lien, but only secures to the owner, as a means of protection, what the legislature intended for his benefit.1 2. Who Entitled to Notice (a) Generally.-Notice must be given to the party named as owner or his agent. If the owner mortgages the estate and is suffered to remain in possession, the mortgagee is not entitled to notice.3 In the case of uses, the cestui is the person entitled to notice. In establishing priority, the claimant must give notice to the debtor and creditor as well as to the sheriff. When subcontractors are entitled to notice from the owner, as to his liability for a mechanics' lien, a failure. to give such notice will render him liable. So where a lien claimant is required by statute to give notice to other claimants to appear and give proof of their claims, he must comply with the terms of the statute.7 1. Shackleford v. Beck, 80 Va. 573, gone out of the contracting parties be581. "The foundation of the lien, in a case like the one before us, is the prior notice to be given to the owner. It is required for the protection of the owner, who is authorized to retain in his hands the amount due to the party giving the notice." STONE, J., in Kenly v. Sisters of Charity, 63 Md. 306. 2. Kinney v. Blackmer, 55 Conn. 261; Neeley v. Searight, 113 Ind. 316; Robinson v. Marney, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 329; Pifer v. Ward, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 252; Goble v. Gale, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 218; Thomas v. Kiblinger, 77 Ind. 85; Patrick v. Ballentine, 22 Mo. 143; Speilman v. Shook, 11 Mo. 340; Henry v. Bunker, 22 Mo. App. 650; Heltzell v. Hynes, 35 Mo. 482; Jorden v. Pumphrey, 36 Md. 361; Wehr v. Shryock, 55 Md. 334; Thomas v. Barber, 10 Md. 380; Schubert v. Crowley, 33 Mo. 564; Whipple v. Christian, So N. Y. 523; Bell. Vanderbilt, 12 Daly (N. Y.) 467; Eastman v. Newman, 59 N. H. 581; Ombony v. Jones, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 520; Kenly v. Sisters of Charity, 63 Md. 306; Lawton v. Case, 73 Ind. 60; Malone v. Big Flat Gravel Co., 76 Cal. 578. The plaintiff filed notice of a lien for labor and materials but two days before the contracting owners had conveyed to third persons in trust for creditors. Notice was served both on the owners and the assignees. Held, the legal right, title and interest having fore notice of the lien was filed, and the lien attaching only to their interest at the time of filing such notice, the lien never attached. Quimby v. Sloan, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 594 A mechanics' lien cannot be enforced where the person alleged to be the owner of the premises by reason of a previous sale did not hold the fee at the time of filing the notice of lien. Noyes v. Burton, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 631. Where the lumber and materials for which a claim under the mechanics' lien law was filed were furnished to F and R, partners in business, and under a contract which upon the face of the claim was made with the firm, F alone being the owner of the house, in the erection of which the lumber and materials were used, the fact that F was a partner of the firm with whom the contract was made does not dispense with the giving to him as owner the notice required by section 11 of article 61, of the Code. Reindollar v. Flickinger, 59 Md. 469. 3. Howard 7. Robinson, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 119. 4. Lamb. Campbell, 19 Ill. App. 272. 5. Coscia v. Kyle, 15 Nev. 394. 6. Williams v. Santa Clara Min. Assoc., 66 Cal. 193, 201. 7. Notice to lien claimants published three times in three successive weeks in a weekly newspaper, although less than twenty-one days intervened between (b) Railway Companies.-Under an act to secure pay to persons performing labor or furnishing materials in constructing railroads, which provides that "any person performing said labor or furnishing said materials, who has not been paid therefor, shall serve a notice in writing upon the secretary or other officer or agent of said railroad company,"-it is sufficient to serve said notice on a director of the company to be affected thereby.1 So notice of a mechanics' lien may be served upon a station agent of a foreign railroad company. In the absence of any statutory mode of service of a notice upon a corporation, when it cannot be had upon the chief officer or managing agent, service upon any officer, whose official relation to the governing body, or managing agent, or chief officer, would make it his duty to communicate the notice, will be sufficient. The secretary is such an officer.3 3. When Not Required.-Where the material-man sells directly to the owner, no notice is required.* 4. Time of Giving Notice. The time within which notice must be given in order to acquire a lien for labor done or materials furnished is purely statutory. In some States, notice must be given the date of the first publication and the time other lien claimants were therein notified to appear; held, to comply sufficiently with the Colo Law 1872, p. 152. Decker v. Myles, 4 Colo. 558. See Bieswaenger v. Werner, 5 Mo. App. 582. 1. Railway Co. v. Cronin, 38 Ohio St. 122, 127; Barnes v. Thompson, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 313, 315; Buck v. Brian, 2 Howe (Miss.) 880. In view of the fact that the corporate powers, business and property of such corporations must be exercised, conducted and controlled by the directors thereof (section 3248 R. S.), there can be no question that a director of such a corporation is an "officer" of it. Railway Co. v. McCoy, 42 Ohio St. 251. 2. Morgan v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 76 Mo. 161. 3. Heltzell v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 77 Mo. 315; 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 619. Implied Notice. Knowledge of a fact concerning the business or affairs of a corporation, acquired by a director or other agent, unless acquired in the management and conduct of its business, does not constitute notice to the corporation. So held in an action againt a corporation and its tenant to foreclose a mechanics' lien for materials furnished in the construction of a building by the tenant on the leased premises, and alleged to have been furnished with the knowledge of the corporation, where it appeared that a 15 C. of L.-9 director of the corporation, on one occasion, was present during the construction of the building. Lothian v. Wood, 55 Cal. 159. 4. Whitford v. Newell, 2 Allen (Mass.) 424; Kidd v. Wilson, 23 Iowa 464; Shoop v. Powles, 13 Md. 304. A lien for materials furnished and actually used in the erection of a building by virtue of an agreement with the owner of land to erect the same thereon, and furnish the materials for the same for one entire price, will attach under Stat. 1855, ch. 431, § 1, without a special notice to the owner of the land of the intent to claim the lien. Whitford v. Newell, 2 Allen (Mass.) 424. Where there is work done and materials furnished continuously under one contract or employment, made by the vendor of the house and lot whilst owner thereof, the mechanics can recover for the whole without giving the purchaser the notice required by the Miller v. act of 1845, ch. 176, § 1. Barroll, 14 Md. 173. If one proceed by scire facias against owner and contractor, to enforce a lien upon a building, and the owner do not object to the want of notice necessary to create the lien, the contractor shall not be heard to do so, for he has no interest to defeat it beyond his obligation to protect the owner from it. His only interest is to lesson the amount due to the plaintiff. Clark v. Brown, 22 Mo. 140. 5. See Stimp. Am. Stat., § 1967. 129 immediately upon commencement of the work; in others, within forty days after completing the work or after payment is due;1 in others within thirty days after completing the work.2 In some 1. A claim of lien of a material-man, filed before the completion of the building for the construction of which the materials were furnished, is premature, and cannot be enforced. Roylance v. San Luis Hotel Co., 74 Cal. 273; Schwartz v. Knight, 74 Cal. 432. Where the parties agree that a building shall be considered as completed before the finishing touches are actually put upon it, the ninety days within which Va. Acts 1883-4, p. 636, allows a mechanics' lien to be filed, run from that time, and not from the time of actual completion. Franklin St. M. E. Church . Davis (Va.), 7 S. E. Rep. 245. 2. Under Oreg. Act, February 14th, 1885, 5, subcontractors must file their claims within thirty days after the completion of the building. Ainslie v. Kohn, 16 Oreg. 363. In California, one who has furnished lumber for the erection of a building has no lien thereon for the price of the lumber, if he fails to file in the recorder's office of the county in which the building is situated, within sixty days after the completion thereof, notice of his intention to hold a lien for the amonut due him, etc. In cases of lien all the provisions of the statute must be complied with. Walker v. Hauss-Hijo, 1 Cal. 183. In District of Columbia, under the act of February 2nd, 1859 (11 Stat. at L. 376), regulating mechanics' liens in the District of Columbia, the contractor may file his notice of intention to claim a lien at any time after the commencement, and within three months after the completion of the work under his control; but his lien begins only from the time of filing his notice. The fact that he is openly doing the work is not notice to anyone; for it is not made so by the statute. Cotton v. Holden, 1 MacArthur (D. C.) 463. In Minnesota, under the Minnesota lien law of 1878, for securing the wages of mechanics and others, the time for filing a lien is limited to one month after the claim becomes due, both as respects personal property and real esÖlson v. Pennington, 37 Minn. tate. 298. In Massachusetts, a person, who furnishes materials at different times un der one contract in the erection of a building, loses his lien under the Gen. Stat., ch. 150, § 5, if he neglects to file his statement of the amount due him within thirty days after the last item is furnished which is actually used in the erection of the building. Gale v. Blaikie, 129 Mass. 206. In Missouri, under the statute of February, 1843, requiring those who would establish a lien on buildings, etc., for labor, materials, etc., to give notice to the owner thirty days from the time the indebtedness accrues, or from the completion of the building, the party must give notice within thirty days from the time his indebtedness accrues, if that be before the completion of the building. Patrick v. Ballentine, 22 Mo. 143. See Heamann v. Porter, 35 Mo. 137. The thirty days' notice referred to in the act of 1843 is confined to subcontractors. Squires v. Fithian, 27 Mo. 134. In New York, the specification in a proceeding to enforce a lien for materials must be served on the person whose property is subject to the lien within twenty days after the materials furnished, and if he sees fit to waive this defence, and judgment is rendered against him, no other person can object to it so far as relates to the interest of the defendant in the proceedings, or the rights of those claiming under or through him. Ombony v. Jones, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 520. See Sullivan v. Brewster, E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 681; Monteith v. Evans, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) Supr. Ct. 65. In New York City, under the act of 1872, relating to mechanics' liens, a notice of lien for work done or materials furnished for structures on piers and bulkheads in the city of New York, must be filed within thirty days from the time the work is finished or materials furnished. Collins v. Drew, 50 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 477. In Nevada, when the work is continuous, although done under different contracts, the lien is preserved by giving notice within sixty days after the work is completed. Capron v. Strout, 11 Nev. 304. In Arkansas, subcontractor has sixty days from the completion of the build cases, it may appear inferentially that the subcontractor's notice was reasonably received by the owner.1 The time for filing notice cannot be extended beyond the become due. Doane v. Clinton, 2 Utah 417. ing and not merely from the furnishing of his labor and materials to file a notice of lien. Clough v. McDonald, 18 Kan. 114. In Indiana, one who builds an entire building may acquire a lien thereon by filing his notice within sixty days after the completion of the building; but, for work or materials for a part only of a building, the notice must be filed within sixty days after the work is done or the materials furnished. Thomas v. Kib linger, 77 Ind. 85; Goble v. Gale, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 218; Pifer v. Ward, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 252; Robinson v. Marney, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 329; Stephenson v. Ballard, 82 Ind. 87; Hamilton v. Naylor, 72 Ind. 171; Crawfordsville v. Brundage, 57 Ind. 202; Killian v. Eigenmann, 57 Ind. 480. One who performs work on, or furnishes materials for a part only of a building, must file his notice of intention to hold a lien within sixty days from the completion of the work or the furnishing of materials, and must bring his action to enforce the same within a year from the completion of such work or the furnishing of such materials, unless credit therefor be given. Hamilton v. Naylor, 71 Ind. 171. Under section 5 of the act of March 6th, 1883 (Acts of 1883, p. 140), concerning mechanics' liens, a verbal notification to the owner or his agent that material is being furnished to or work performed for the contractor, is sufficient to enable a material-man or mechanic to acquire a lien. Vinton v. Builders etc. Assoc., 109 Ind. 351. In Maryland, when a material-man furnishes materials to an architect or builder, who is not the owner of the land on which the building is being erected, and he desires to claim a mechanics' lien on the land for the materials, it is necessary for him to give the owner notice of such claim within sixty days from the time when the materials were furnished. Such notice must be served on the owner or his agent personally, unless personal service is impracticable on account of absence, or other cause, in which case it may be placed on the building. Kenly v. Sisters of Charity, 63 Md. 306. In Utah, the mechanics' lien does not require the notice of lien to state the time when such money was due or to 1 In Rhode Island, A, in the employ of B, and hired by the day, worked continuously on C's house from November 12th to December 10th. December 25th, A served notice on C that he should claim a mechanics' lien on the house. The statute provided that no one employed as A was should have such a lien unless he "shall, within thirty days ofter commencing the work, give notice in writing to the person against whose estate or title he claims a lien that he has commenced the work, and that he shall claim the benefit of the lien" Held, that A was not entitled to a lien; the notice of December 25th not being given within thirty days after he commenced the work. Mowry v. Hill, 14 R. I. 504. In Virginia, a subcontractor may give notice as soon as the materials are furnished, and may furnish the required affidavit at the same time or at any time thereafter, if within twenty days after the work is completed. Norfolk etc. R. Co. v. Howison, 81 Va. 125; Roanoke Land etc. Co. v. Karn, So Va. 589. Successive Contracts on Same Building. Where a contractor agreed to build a house for a certain sum, and, after that was done, agreed to build a porch to the same house, and plaintiff furnished the last of its bill of lumber for the first contract June 16th, but furnished lumber for the porch June 27th and 29th; and July 22nd it served its notice on the owner that a lien would be claimed on account of all the lumber (which was all charged in one account), and July 29th it filed its statement for a lien, held, that since there was but one house, and since the interval between the last item furnished for the house proper and the first item for the porch was less than thirty days, and since the notice was served in thirty days after furnishing the last lumber for the porch, the whole account should be regarded as one, notwithstanding the successive contracts, and that the notice was served in time to bind the owner as to the whole claim. Jones & Magee Lumber Co. v. Murphy, 64 Iowa 165. 1. Miller v. Hoffman, 26 Mo. App. 199. 、 period fixed by the statute, under the doctrine of relation or by attaching one item to another, and so bridging over the lapse of time.1 5. Delay in Giving Notice.-A lien statement filed is ineffectual to perfect a lien, if it shows affirmatively upon its face that it was filed too late, even though the fact may have been otherwise.2 Where the statute requires the notice of lien to be filed within a certain time after completion of the labor, labor done prior to the time of filing notice must appear to be a part of continuous labor, and it cannot avail, if done apparently for the purpose of evading the law.3 6. Requisites of Notice.-The notice from the material-man to the owner must be given within the time prescribed by statute.a In some States, it must be in writing. It must state the name of the owner and contractor.6 The intention to claim the benefit 94. 1. Spencer v. Barnett, 35 N. Y. See St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. O'Reilly, 85 Ill. 546. 2. Olson v. Pennington, 37 Minn. 298; Bowes v. New York Christian Home, 64 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 509; Rowland v. Centerville etc. R. Co., 61 Iowa 380; 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 47. The fact that one had done some work upon the house, the lien for which had been lost by lapse of time, does not bar enforcement of his lien for work thereon properly included in his thirty days' notice. Kenyon v. Peckham, 10 R. I. 402. 3. Duffy v. Baker, 17 Abb. (N. Y.) N. Cas. 357 4. Weithoff v. Murray, 76 Cal. 508; Schubert v. Crowley, 33 Mo. 564; Dart v. Fitch, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 361; Williamson v. New Jersey etc. R. Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 277. Where a mechanic filed his lien, and neglected to give notice thereof to the owner as required by statute, and subsequently filed a second lien and gave the proper notice, and brought his action to enforce the lien within the time prescribed by the statute with reference to the second lien, but after the expiration of that time with reference to the first; it was held, that the first lien was inoperative, that the second was properly filed, and the action was seasonably brought. Davis v. Schuler, 38 Mo. 24. A notice on the fifteenth of a month of a mechanics' lien filed on the twentyfifth is sufficient under the statute requiring that ten days' notice shall be given. Hahn v. Dierkes, 37 Mo. 574. 5. Butler v. Gain, 128 Ill. 23; Jeure v. Perkins, 29 Iowa 262; Carney 7. Tully, 74 Ill. 375. Compare Ainslie v. Kohn, 16 Oreg. 363. 6. Davis v. Livingston, 29 Cal. 283; Peck v. Hensley, 21 Ind. 344; McBride v. Crawford, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 658; Steinmann v. Stimple, 29 Mo. App. 478; Leiegne v. Schwarzler, 67 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 130; Tibbets v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208; Gorman v. Dierkes, 37 Mo. 576; McElwee v. Sanford, 53 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 89; Beals v. Congregation B'nai Jeshurun, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 654; Horton v. Cook, 1 Alb. L. J. 161; Phelps v. Maxwell etc. Min. Co., 49 Cal. 336, 337; Riley v. Watson, 6 Thomp. & Co. C. (N. Y.) 310. Under the act of 1851, the notice is sufficient if it specify the name of the person against whom the claim was made, the name of the owner of the building, its situation and the amount of the claim, stating it to be under the statute. It is unnecessary to give the name of the person with whom the contract was made. Hauptman v. Catlin, 20 N. Y. 247; s. c., 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 666. And see Tinker v. Geraghty, I E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 687. Under the law of 1851, the notice of a claim filed with the county clerk, in which notice the owner is not named nor described, nor attempted to be identified in any manner, is insufficient. Beals v. Congregation B'nai Jeshurun, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 654. An error in the name of the owner, in the notice of claim in a mechanics' lien proceeding, can be corrected in the complaint. Leiegne v. Schwarzler, 67 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 130. A statement in the notice of lien that |