of the lien, the date from which the lien is claimed,2 the nature and kind of labor and materials and the amount claimed.3 It must give a description of the property, and it must also be

signed and verified in the same manner as a pleading.2 According to some local statutes, where the amount claimed is less than one hundred dollars, the notice must require the defendant to appear in a justice court.3

If the owners are a corporation, the notice should name them; if an association, then the individuals composing it should be described in the notice either by their associate name, or otherwise identified.4

The notice of a mechanics' lien should inform the public whether the claim be due or not; and ambiguities will operate to the prejudice of the claimant rather than the public. But it is unnecessary, in a notice of a mechanics' lien, to set out the items of the account. Nothing more is required than a statement of the demand, showing its nature and character, and the amount due thereon. So the notice to be given to the owner of land and to other creditors, in proceedings to enforce a mechanics' lien, need not be given at any particular term of court. The notice need not state the character in which the work was performed, nor that it was performed within the time of giving notice.8

7. Ambiguity of Notice. An ambiguity in the introduction of the notice, in describing the claim as against one person, instead of two may be cured by a reference to a full and accurate statement of the claim, in the subsequent parts of the notice.9

8. Method of Serving Notice.-Where the statute requires notice, without prescribing the method of service, personal notice is intended.10 And personal notice must be given by a delivery thereof directly to the person to be notified. And not by delivering the original or a copy to his servants or members of his family at his house. Leaving the original or a copy at the residence with someone other than the person to be served is, perhaps, sometimes spoken of as personal service, in a loose way, where there can be no mistake about the real meaning,-as, in

6. Brennan v. Swasey, 16 Cal. 140; Selden v. Meeks, 17 Cal. 129. See Davis v. Livingston, 29 Cal. 283.

7. Rockwood υ. Walcott, 3 Allen (Mass.) 458.

8. Lutz v. Ey, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 621; s. c., 3 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 475; Tinker v. Geraghty, I E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 687.

Notice to the owner to appear in proceedings to foreclose a lien, need not state when the lien was filed. Tinker v. Geraghty, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 687.

9. Hubbell v. Schreyer, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 300, 56 N. Y. 604; reversing s. c., 4 Daly (N. Y.) 362.

10. McDermott v. Board of Police, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 635; Rathbun v. Acker,

case of bills and notes,-to distinguish it from service through the mail. Bnt personal service is, properly, service upon the person to be served. And the general rule is, that where notice is required by statute, and the method of service is not prescribed, personal service is meant. The claimant of the lien cannot elect between giving the personal notice and placing it on the building. He can only do the latter when the former is impracticable on account of the absence of the owner or agent from the county or city.2

9. Statutes. Generally, written notice must be given the owner.3 In Arizona, California, Idaho, Maryland and Michigan, if the owner is unknown or not to be found, it may be posted on the land.4

10. Joint Notice.-A joint notice of mechanics' lien by two or more persons having separate claims against distinct parcels of property is bad; so also is a single notice by one against separate parcels, seeking to charge both parcels with the aggregate of his claims against each. If the subcontractor or material-man

18 Barb. (N. Y.) 393; Carney v. Tully, 74 Ill. 375.

1. Ryan v. Kelly, 9 Mo. App. 396; Rathbun v. Acker, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 393; McDermott v. Board of Police, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 635; Carney v. Fully, 74

Ill. 375.

2. Kenly v. Sisters of Charity, 63 Md. 306.

3. Ark. 4403; Ariz. 1885, 93, 5; Cal. 1885, 152, 2; Conn. 18, 7, 11; Dak. C. Civ. P. 658; D. C. 709; İll. 82, 30; Iowa 2134; Ky. 70, 5; Md. 67, 6, 11; Mo. 3190; Mont. G. L. 821; Neb. 1885, 62, 2; Miss. 1381; La. 2879: Ohio_3198; Ida. Civ. C. 816; N. Car. 1802; R. I. 177, 6; Tenn. 2746; Tex. 3176; Utah C. Civ. P. 1058; Va. 115, 5; 1884, 456; W. Va. 1882, 64, 5; Wyom. P. 460, § 2; 1887, p. 81, § 18. See Seibs v. Engelhardt, 78 Ala. 508.

A person furnishing materials for a building without special contract with the owner, must, to entitle himself to a lien on the same, give written notice to the owner at the time the work is begun or the materials furnished. Shelby v. Hicks, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 197.

Notice of a mechanics' lien, by a subcontractor to the owner of a building, must be in writing, and a notice, although written, but with no name signed to it, and not stating from whom it came or who held the claim, is not sufficient; nor can the omissions be supplied by evidence of verbal information to the owner of the facts. Schulenburg v. Bascom, 38 Mo. 188.

In Indiana, the notice required by section 5 of the act of 1883, p. 140, to be given to the owner or his agent that work is being done for, or that materials are being furnished to, the contractor may be by parol, but it must be such an affirmative act or declaration as will put the owner on his guard. Neeley v. Searight, 113 Ind. 316; Vinton v. Builders, 109 Ind. 351.

4. Stimp. Am. Stat. L., § 1967.

It must be shown affirmatively that the personal notice was impracticable, before a notice placed on the building will be held sufficient. Kenly v. Sisters of Charity, 63 Md. 306.

In Iowa, personal service of a petition, under the mechanics' lien law, is necessary, when the defendant can be found in the county; if not to be found in the county, notices posted on the buildings subject to the lien, is a sufficient service; in which case it must appear by the officer's return that the defendant could not be found. Colcord v. French, 1 Morr. (Iowa) 178.

5. McGrew v. McCarty, 78 Ind. 496; Hill v. Braden, 54 Ind. 72; Hill v. Ryan, 54 Ind. 118.

A mechanics' lien filed against three distinct blocks of buildings, separated by streets, is null and void upon its face. Goepp v. Gartiser, 35 Pa. St. 130.

In Chadbourn 7. Williams, 71 N. Car. 444, it was held that a mechanics' lien may be created by one notice upon two distinct lots, although separated;

serves more than one notice claiming a lien for the same account the serveral notices cannot be considered together for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of notice to hold a lien, but each must stand on its own merits and the lien will not exist unless one of the notices is sufficient in itself to give it.1

11. Service of notice on agent of owner of an intention to claim a lien, is sufficient if done within the time specified by the statute. But if in a proceeding by a material-man to enforce a lien for materials furnished a building it appears that the statutory notice of the claim against the building is served upon one as the agent of the owner, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of the agency.3

12. Alteration of Notice.-On filing a complaint on a mechanics' lien no material alterations in the notice can, as against third persons, be allowed.4 The courts have not power to amend a notice filed to create a mechanics' lien, which, as originally filed, specifies the wrong lots of land intended to be subjected to the lien, even though no rights of third persons have intervened.5

13. Defective Notice.-A notice which omits that which the statute requires is fatally defective.6 The appearance of defendants

and may relate back to the time when the materials began to be furnished.

1. Davis v. Livingston, 29 Cal. 283. 2. Peters v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 24 Mo. 586. See Conway v. Crook & Wife, 66 Md. 290; Rimmey v. Getterman, 63 Md. 424. See Leguard v. Armstrong, 18 Ill. App. 549.

Under a requirement that the owner or his agent shall receive notice, a notice given to an agent whose powers are limited to renting offices in the building during the owner's absence is not sufficient. Henry v. Bunker, 22 Mo. App. 650.

3. Anderson v. Volmer, 83 Mo. 403. 4 Wade v. Reitz, 18 Ind. 307.

A mechanic filed his claim for a lien against certain parties, and the scire facias was issued against them only, and notice by advertisement, as directed by the statute, was not given to other parties interested, but was waived by the consent of the plaintiff and defendant. Held, that the judgment obtained by the mechanic did not affect the rights of third persons having liens on the same property. McKim v. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. Decis. 186.

5. Lindley v. Cross, 31 Ind. 106.

6. Luscher v. Morris, 18 Abb. (N. Y.) N. Cas. 67; Hentig v. Sperry, 38 Kan. 459.

If the notice of claim required by statute substantially complies therewith. a literal and technical compliance will

not be exacted. Towner v. Rennick, 19 Mo. App. 205.

The misuse of the word "effects" for offsets will not invalidate the notice. Merchant v. Humeston, 2 Wash. (U. S.) 433.

Where, in an action to foreclose a mechanics' lien, the defendant's name was T. Phelia Boyd Hopkins, and the service of the notice was by publication, and the published notice was addressed to P. T. B. Hopkins, without passing upon the validity of such a notice, where the initials only are given instead of the Christian name; held, that the transposition of the initials of the Christian name of defendant made the notice of no effect as to her, that the notice gave the court no jurisdiction to render a decree against her, and that, as against her, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale took no title. Fanning v. Krapfl, 61 Iowa 417.

A defect in the notice to nonresidents interested in the property upon which a mechanics' lien is claimed, as required by Rhode Island Rev. Stat., ch. 150, § 11, by publication, etc., cannot be remedied even under the general equity powers of the court by ordering a new citation. Vickerie v. Spencer, 9 R. I. 585.

The failure of a plaintiff, in an action to foreclose a mechanics' lien, to publish notice of the suit, as required by statute, will not deprive a lien claimant

in proceedings to foreclose a lien does not waive a defect in the notice of the claim; nor can the court allow an amendment of the notice by which the imperfection can be cured.1

14. Proof of Notice.--Where notice to the parties named as owners or reputed owners was necessary, and the plaintiff avers that it was given, no decree can be rightfully passed without proof that the notice was given as alleged.2

XVII. FILING Statement of CLAIM.—In order to validate a lien, whether of contractor or subcontractor, the statutes also require in most States the filing of a statement of claim specifying the property subject to lien, the work done, the amount claimed, either in the county clerk's offices or in the registry of deeds for the county where the estate subject to lien lies, or other place that may be designated by the terms of the statute.5