contract, and it did not appear that there was any express agreement as to time. Held, that the objection could not be sustained. Hills v. Ohlig, 63 Cal. 104.

1. Moritz v Splitt, 55 Wis. 441; Bertheolet v. Parker, 43 Wis. 551; Thomas v. Smith, 42 Pa. St. 68.

In Maryland, where a material-man claiming in virtue of the provisions of article 61, of the Code, relating to mechanics' lien, to be entitled to a lien on a certain building and lot attached, for lumber and materials furnished by him, and used in the erection of said building, omits to state explicitly in the claim filed by him, who was the owner or reputed owner of such building, such omission is fatal to the claim. Reindollar v. Flickinger, 59 Md. 469.

2. McDonald v. Backus, 45 Cal. 262; Preston v. Sonora Lodge, 39 Cal. 116; Hopkins v. Forrester, 39 Conn 351, North Star Iron Works Co. v. Strong, 33 Minn. 1; 33 Minn. 384; Barber v. Reynolds, 44 Cal. 520; Irish v. Harvey, 44 Ta. St. 76; Jackman v. Gloucester, 143 Mass. 380; Charnley v. Honig, 74 Wis. 163.

The omission, from the body of a mechanics' claim, of the initial letter of the middle name of the owner is immaterial. Knabb's Appeal, to Pa. St. 186.

In a petition to enforce a mechanics' lien, the Christian name of the respondent was James, but the certificate stated it as "John," with a line drawn across the three last letters. Held, that the fact that the name was erroneously recorded as John did not prevent an enforcement of the lien. Getchell v. Moran, 124 Mass. 404.

Where the clerk declined to docket an

order of court, continuing a mechanics' lien, on account of a clerical mistake in it and the agent of the lienor took the order away aud failed to return it, held that the lien expired notwithstanding the order. Barton v. Herman, 8 Abb. (N. Y.) Pr., N. S. 399.

A mechanics' lien cannot be maintained if the person claiming the lien, knowing the name of the owner of the estate, misstates it in the certificate. Kelley v. Laws, 109 Mass. 395; Wood v. Wrede, 46 Cal. 637.

3. Whitenack v. Noe, 11 N. J. Eq. 321; Dennis v. Smith, 38 Minn. 494.

4. Allen v. Frumet Min. etc. Co., 73 Mo. 688. See McPherson v. Walton, 42 N. J. Eq. 282; Johnson v. Barnes & Morrison Building Co., 23 Mo. App. 546; Harmon v. San Francisco etc. R. Co. (Cal.), 22 Pac. Rep. 407.

A mechanics' lien is not defeated by his including in his statement, as a part of his claim for labor and materials "in building and erecting a house," items of charge for labor and materials in building a fence and other structures which were included in the same bargain, provided he honestly supposed he had a lien therefor, and a right to claim it in that manner. Hubbard v. Brown, 8 Allen (Mass.) 590.

Such lien may be enforced, irrespective of the state of accounts between the contractor and owner, or the amount due upon such contract. In such cases the lien is limited to the reasonable value of the labor or materials furnished. Laird v. Moonan, 32 Minn. 358.

Under the statutes of Missouri, the right of a lien holder does not depend upon the question of his good faith in the statement of his demand, nor is it avoided or devested by reason of the

sum claimed being excessive. Heamann v. Porter, 35 Mo. 137.

Where plaintiff, a subcontractor, filed a statement and claim for a mechanics' lien, and blended in his statement his account for moneys received and disbursed for his immediate employer with his account for labor performed by him, and then claimed a lien for the general balance, which was much greater than the balance actually due him for labor, and these facts were apparent upon the face of his statement; held, in an action to establish the lien, that a demurrer was properly sustained thereto, because the statement and claim filed was not a "just and true statement as required by the statute (Laws of 1876, ch. 100, §6) and did not entitle the plaintiff to a lien. Stubbs v. Clarinda etc. R. Co., 65 Iowa 513.

1. Caldwell v. Ashbury, 29 Ind. 451; Bedsole v. Peters, 79 Ala. 133; Montgomery Iron Works v. Dorman, 78 Ala. 718; Bradish v. James, 83 Mo. 313; De Witt v. Smith, 63 Mo. 263; Brown v. Wright, 25 Mo. App. 54; White Lake Lumber Co. v. Russell, 22 Neb. 126; Lyon v. Logan, 68 Tex. 521; Brundage v. Phillips, 3 Grant (Pa.) 313; Brown v. La Crosse etc. Co., 16 Wis. 555; Odd Fellows' Hall v. Masser, 24 Pa. St. 507; Williams v. Porter, 51 Mo. 441; Austin v. Wohler, 5 Ill. App. 300; Kelly v. Brown, 20 Pa. St. 446; Harker v. Conrad, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 301; Buckley v. Boutellier, 61 Ill. 293; Tibbetts v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208; Parker v. Bell, 7 Gray (Mass.) 429; Knabb's Appeal, 10 Pa. St 186; Morris Canal Co. Brockaway Mfg. Co., 14 N. J. Eq. 189; Oster v. Robeneau, 46 Mo. 595; Tredinnick v. Red Cloud etc. Min. Co., 72 Cal. 78; Shaw v. Barnes, 5 Pa. St. 18; s. c., 47 Am. Dec. 399; Titusville Iron Works v. Keystone Oil Co. (Pa.), 18 Atl. Rep. 739; Springer v. Keyser, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 187; Hillary v. Mole, 1 W.N.C.(Pa.) 239; Hemberger v. Kohler, 1 W. N. C. (Pa.) 311; Shaffer v. Hull, 2 Clark 93; Hill's Estate, 2 Clark 96; Kennedy v. House, 41 Pa. St. 39; Simpson v. Murray, 2 Pa. St. 76; Washburn v. Russel, I Pa. St. 499; Ewing v. Barras, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 467; Barclay's Appeal, 13 Pa. St. 495.

Where the building and improve

ments are described, in the verified claim filed for record, as "the recently erected two story frame dwelling and improvements of the said M C R, which are now occupied as a dwelling house by him and his family," the description is sufficient as to the dwelling house, but not as to the other improvements. Turner v. Robbins, 78 Ala. 592.

In setting out the situation and peculiarities of a building in a mechanic's claim, such matters of description as are adequate to identify the building are sufficient. Mountain City etc. Assoc. v. Kearns, 103 Pa. St. 403.

The mere fact of the excess of one acre in the description will not avoid the lien. Bradish v. James, 83 Mo. 313.

Under the mechanics' lien law of 1876, a contract was filed and recorded, and the land against which the lien was claimed was described by giving the name of the original grantee and of a creek on which the land was, and for particular description of that portion owned by the employer, reference was made to a deed conveying the land to him, giving the book and page of the county records. The location of that portion of the land on which the house was built was described as "the north or upper part of the tract." Held, that both the description of the entire tract and of that portion on which the lien was claimed were sufficient. Swope v. Stantzenberger, 59 Tex. 387.

A description in the claim of the property as two three story brick houses, on the east side of Fifth street, between Franklin avenue and Morgan street, is insufficient to support a lien, as it does not sufficiently identify the subject of the lien. Matlack v. Lare, 32 Mo. 262.

Where a description of real estate is true in every particular, and no other property answers to such description, and the property may easily be found by anyone who may be acquainted with such description and with the facts which exist and which may easily be ascertained upon enquiry; held, that the description is sufficient. Seaton v. Hixon & Co., 35 Kan. 653.

The statute, with regard to a builder, provides that the builder shall file in the office of the town clerk a certificate of his lien, which shall "describe the

premises." A party, having a lien on one of three paper mills, which were near each other, and belonging to the same owner, but were independent and susceptible of a separate description, described the premises on which the lien was claimed as "two tracts of land situated in the town of W, one bounded [etc.] with two paper mills thereon, and the other bounded [etc.] with one paper mill thereon," and described the lien as "for materials furnished and services rendered in the erection and repairs of said several paper mills." Held, that the certificate was void, as not containing a reasonably accurate description of the premises within the meaning of the statute. Rose v. Persse etc. Paper Works, 29 Conn. 256.

v.

1. Holland v. Garland, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 544. See Bedsole v. Peters, 79 Ala. 133; Basshor v. Kilbourn, 3 MacArthur (D. C.) 273; Brown v. La Crosse Gas Light Co., 16 Wis. 555; Odd Fellows' Hall v. Masser, 24 Pa. St. 507; Caldwell v. Ashbury, 29 Ind. 451; Barrows Baughman, 9 Mich. 213; McCoy v. Quick, 30 Wis. 521; Knabb's Appeal, 10 Pa. St. 186; Ewing v. Barras, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 467; Driesbach v. Keller, 2 Pa. St. 77; Richabaugh v. Dugan, 7 Pa. St. 394; Ferguson 7. Vollum, i Phila. (Pa.) 181; McClintock v. Rush, 63 Pa. St. 203. Compare Redington v. Frve, 43 Me. 578; Knox v. Starks, 4 Minn. 20: Shaw v. Barnes, 5 Pa. St. 18; Bank of Charleston v. Curtis, 18 Conn. 342; Kennedy v. House, 41 Pa. St. 39; Gault . Demning, 18 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 86; s. c., 3 Phila. (Pa.) 337; O'Halloran v. Sullivan, 1 Greene (Iowa) 75; Hotaling v. Cronise, 2 Cal. 60; Pue v. Hetzell, 16 Md. 539; Parker v. Bell, 7 Gray (Mass.) 429; Barclay's Appeal, 13 Pa. St. 495; Howell v Žerbee, 26 Ind. 214.

A description recorded to secure a mechanics' lien, which may apply to various houses, is not made certain by describing the house as the property of A B, who owns only one of the various houses, as against an innocent purchaser who is not shown to have notice of this latter fact. Montrose v. Conner, 8 Cal.

344.

15 C. of L.-10

A mechanics' lien is not necessarily void because it does not accurately describe the size of the building against which it is filed; if there be enough in the description to identify it with reasonable certainty, it is a sufficient compliance with the requisitions of the act. Kennedy v. House, 41 Pa. St.

39.

Under the statutory provisions declaring and regulating the lien of contractors and material-men, and requiring the claimant to file with the probate judge “a just and true account of his demand,” and “a true description of the property upon which the lien is intended to apply, or so near as to identify the same" (Code, §§ 3440-44), the same certainty of description is requisite in the claim as in the levy of an execution, so that the court may be informed what particular land to order sold, and the purchaser may be able to locate it; and the complaint, in an action to enforce the lien, must be equally specific and definite. Montgomery Iron Works v. Dorman, 78 Ala. 218.

Where the claim filed mentioned the county, ownership and village in which the property was situated, the road on which it fronted, the owners of the adjoining property, the materials of which the building was constructed, the number of stories, that it had a finished basement, etc., and giving the correct width in front, but the depth incorrectly, it was held that this was not such a misdescription as would avoid the lien for uncertainty. Kennedy v. House, 41 Pa. St. 39.

2. Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Oreg.

492.

Where a claim is filed, under the provisions of the act of February 17th,

1858, extending the mechanics' lien law in certain counties to certain improvements, engines, etc., put up by tenants of leased estates on lands of others, the property against which the lien is given must be so accurately described that when judgment is obtained on the scire facias a separate schedule will not be required to be annexed to the levari facias for the guidance of the sheriff. Ely v. Wren, 90 Pa. St. 148.

1. Ewing v. Barras, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 467.

2. Henry v. Plitt, 84 Mo. 237; Hillary v. Pollock, 13 Pa. St. 186; Westland v. Goodman, 47 Conn. 83; Harrington v. Dollman, 64 Ind. 255. See North v. La Flesh, 73 Wis. 520.

A mechanics' lien was filed stating the amount due to be $3,500. In a suit for a foreclosure of the lien it was found by the court that the balance due was $733. It appeared, however, that the sum found due was a balance of a large account, amounting on the plaintiff's side to over $5,500, and it was found that neither party had kept accurate accounts, and that the plaintiff filed his lien under a mistake as to the amount due him, and that there was no evidence that a fraud was intended or that the defendants were injured. Held, not to vitiate the lien. Kiel v. Carll, 51 Conn. 440.

A mechanics' lien cannot be enforced against the interest of anyone in an estate, upon which interest no claim of lien is made in the notice, required to be filed in the town clerk's office. Bliss v. Patten, 5 R. I. 376.

3. Beers v. Knapp, 5 Ben. 104.

Thus a claim for services and mate rials in the construction of specified buildings would not include either machinery or fixtures not necessarily connected with and forming part of the buildings themselves. It would not include fences or blocks or timber for

trip hammers, or any other frame work or supports for machinery, which could be put in or taken out without disturbing the buildings. Beers v. Knapp, 5 Ben. 104.

4. Hodmon v. Trammell, 86 Ala. 472; Stubbs v. Clarinda etc. R. Co., 62 Iowa 280; 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 492; Valentine v. Rawson, 57 Iowa 179. See Sexton v. Weaver, 141 Mass. 273; Gilman v. Gard, 29 Ind. 291; Ricker v. Joy, 72 Me. 106; M’Donald v. Lindall, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 492; Derrickson v. Edwards, 29 N. J. L. 468; Noll v. Swineford, 6 Pa. St. 187.

For the purpose of enforcing a mechanics' lien for labor, a statement of account was filed embracing items of sums due for materials as well as labor, and crediting a sum paid generally on account during the progress of the work. It was held that, even if the debt incurred for labor separately might be shown approximately by esti mates, the statement was defective inasmuch as no means were offered of determining to what part of the debt the payment should be applied, and consequently how much remained due for labor. Driscoll v. Hill, 11 Allen (Mass.) 154.

A certificate filed in the town clerk's office, under Stat. 1855, ch. 431, §§ 2, 3, claiming a lien for the entire amount agreed to be paid for. the performance of a contract to do certain labor and furnish certain materials in the erection of a building, and stating that the mechanic has not completed the work by reason of proceedings in insolvency against the owner of the land, and not stating the proportion due for the labor actually performed and materials actually used, is insufficient to support a lien on the building and land under that statute. Lewin v. Whittenton Mills, 13 Gray (Mass.) 100.

A statement for a lien, which is at