9. Time of Filing Lien. -The time within which a mechanics' lien must be filed is regulated entirely by statute; and one who claims the right given by such a statute must bring himself fairly tist Church v. Trout, 28 Pa. St. 153And see McCay's Appeal, 37 Pa. St. 125: Vandyke v. Carson, 1 W. N. C. (Pa.) 107. In Maryland, art. 61, § 19, of the Code, requires the time when the work is done, or materials furnished, to be stated in the mechanics' lien filed; but if by accident or mistake, and without fraud, the date is erroneously entered, and the proof establishes the doing of the work or the actual delivery of the materials which are charged, and supplies the correct date, which is within the time allowing the lien to be filed, the error cannot be availed of to defeat recovery. Treusch v. Shryock, 55 Md. 330. New Jersey.-A statement of a claim for a lien "February 25th, 1857, JT D to E and C, Dr. To building waterwheel flume and breast shaft, and furnishing materials (except the waterwheel shaft), done by special contract for $4,000, the said E and C to have the old wheel, and D to find the new waterwheel shaft, $4,000," with credits deducted, leaving balance due $1,814.70, gives, with sufficient particularity, the time when the work was done, and is otherwise sufficient. Edwards v. Derrickson, 28 N. J. L. 29. Pennsylvania.-As to time, it is sufficient under the act of March 24th, 1849, in mechanics' liens, to set forth the dates of the commencement and conclusion of the work, and the aggregate price of the work and materials. Smaltz v. Knott, 3 Grant (Pa.) 227; Rehrer v. Zeigler, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 258. 1. Stimp. Am. Stat., § 1968. In Alabama, the lien given by statute to contractors, mechanics and materialmen, for labor done and materials fur nished in the construction of buildings, etc. (Code, §§ 3440-44), attaches from the commencement of the building, but is inchoate until the claim is filed in the cffice of the judge of probate, and if the claim is not so filed within the time prescribed by the statute, the lien is lost. Welch v. Porter & Co, 63 Ala. 225. Entire Contracts.-Lien under an entire contract must be filed within statutory time after completion of work, and cannot be filed for successive instalments or part performance. Cox v. Western Pacific R. Co., 44 Cal. 18. Alabama.-A person who furnishes materials for a planing mill, under a contract with the owner of the property, is an original contractor (Code, §§ 344044), and may file his claim of lien at any time within six months after his indebtedness has accrued. Lane v. Jones, 79 Ala. 156. In Arkansas, the account for which the lien is claimed must be filed within ninety days from the time the machinery is placed upon the premises to be charged with the lien. White v. Chaffin, 32 Ark. 59. In California, material-men furnishing materials for the construction of a building, under a contract with the owner and persons directly employed by him to work on the building, must file their claims within thirty days from the completion of the building. Sparks v. Butte Co. Gravel Min. Co., 55 Cal. 389; Dingley v. Greene, 54 Cal. 333See Barrows v. Knight, 55 Cal. 155. Neither a contractor nor a subcontractor can from time to time, as the work progresses, file successive liens for work done on an entire contract. In such case but one lien can be acquired, and that must be filed within the time specified by the statute after the completion of the work. Cox v. Western Pacific R. Co., 44 Cal. 18; s. c., 47 Cal. 87; Dingley v. Greene, 54 Cal. 335. Code Civil Proc. Cal., § 1187, which provides that the notice of a claim for a mechanics' lien must be filed within thirty days after the completion of the improvement, alteration, etc., does not refer to the operation of a mine, for which explosives are furnished by a claimant, as the thing to be completed. Cal. Powder Works v. Blue Tent Con. Hydr. Gold Mines (Cal.), 22 Pac. Rep. 391. In Connecticut, the lien must be filed within sixty days from the commencement of the job. Shattuck v. Beardsley, 46 Conn. 386, 387. Where the statute requires the lien to be filed within sixty days after the work is completed, a certificate stating that it is filed within sixty days after the work was completed, is not necessarily insufficient because it also states the date of such completion, and it appears that more than sixty days have since elapsed. In such case the claimant may show, if he can, that such date was incorrect, and that a later day should have been stated, unless the mistake has prejudiced the adverse party. Westland v. Goodman, 47 Conn. 83, 85. In Kansas, under Code, § 632, the statement if filed before the building is completed, is filed prematurely, and will not support lien. Catlin v. Douglass, 33 Fed. Rep. 569; Davis v. Bullard, 32 Kan. 234; Shellabarger v. Bishop, 14 Kan. 432. The statutory four months within which to file statement for a lien dates from the time the machinery is in fact furnished or put up, and not from the time the contractor had agreed that it should be furnished or put up. Bashor v. Nordyke Co., 25 Kan. 222. In Missouri, if the materials were furnished under one contract, or on a continuous, running account, the statement is seasonably filed within ninety days from the time when the last were delivered. Heltzell v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 435; Stebed v. Stock, 31 Mo. 456. If the materials are furnished under different, distinct contracts, the lien must be filed under each contract, within the time limited. Livermore v. Wright, 33 Mo. 31. com Massachusetts.-On a petition to enforce a mechanics' lien, it appeared that the respondent agreed to convey a parcel of land to a person on condition that the latter should build a house upon the land within a certain time. This person made a contract with the petitioner to build a cellar wall warranted to stand. The wall was pleted, but was afterwards injured by the action of the frost, and was repaired by the petitioner after his employer's authority to bind the respondent had ceased. The petitioner filed his statement of lien more than thirty days after he completed the wall, and within thirty days after he made the repairs. Held, that if he made the repairs without the authority of the respondent, he could not enforce his lien; otherwise, if he ac.ed in good faith to fulfil his warranty, at the request of the respondent, the latter having knowledge of the terms of the contract under which the wall was built. Worthen v. Cleaveland, 129 Mass. 570. Montana-Under Mont. act September 14th, 1887, § 2, amending Mont. Gen. Laws, § 821, a lien for work and labor performed upon a mine continues for forty-five days only, and accounts must be filed within that time with the county clerk and recorder, in order to enforce the lien. Alesina v. Stock, 8 Mont. 416. New York City.-A lien by one furnishing materials for the erection, etc., of a building in the city of New York, must be filed within thirty days after the materials are furnished, not thirty days after the completion of the building. Gates v. Buddensieck, 56 How (N. Y.) Pr. 198;6 Abb. (N. Y.) N. Cas. 367. In Pennsylvania, where a person furnishes materials in pursuance of a contract, it is sufficient if he files his claim within six months from the last act done in the execution of it. Bartlett v. Kingan, 19 Pa. (7 Harris) 341; Russell v. Bell, 44 Pa. St. (8 Wright) 47; Bolton's Appeal, 3 Grant (Pa.) 204; Ramsey's Appeal, 2 Watts (Pa.) 228; s. c., 27 Am. Dec. 301; Yearsley v. Flanigen, 22 Pa. St. 489; Hudnit v. Roberts, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 535. A claim for a mechanics' lien must state that the work was done and the materials furnished within six months from the entry of the claim, but dates must be given, either on the face of the claim, or by reference, by which the allegation can be substantiated. If the work is done under one entire contract, one date orly need be stated and the evidence must show that the date of actual completion was within the six months; and if that be proved, it is immaterial whether the date alleged and the date proved be the same. Fourth Baptist Church v. Trout, 28 Pa. St. 153. Where work is done upon several houses, under an entire contract, work done upon one will not keep alive the lien as to the others, upon which none has been done within six months. Wilson v. Forder, 30 Pa. St. 129; Full v. Austin, I W. N. C. (Pa.) 457; McCurdy v. Keenan, 1 W. N. C. (Pa.) 523. Texas.-Rev. St. Tex., art. 3165 (Sayles, Laws 1885), requiring every person, in order to obtain the benefit of the mechanics' lien law, to file an itemized statement of his claim with the county clerk within thirty days. This law is sufficiently complied with where a material-man delivers such a statement to the clerk on the thirtieth day after such indebtedness accrues, but the clerk does not record it until the next day. Bassett v. Bowers (Tex.), 12 S. W. Rep. 229. See Huck v. Gaylord, 50 Tex. 578; Cameron v. Marshall, 65 Tex. 7. within its terms.1 The lien must be properly filed of record within the time stipulated by statute in order to be valid.2 Under a statute providing that the "time within which an act is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last; if the last day be Sunday, it shall be excluded,”—where the four months prescribed by the mechanics' lien law, after the indebtedness accrues, expires on Sunday, the lien is insufficient unless filed on the Saturday preceding.3 The time cannot, as against a subsequent mortgagee, be extended by agreement between the owner of the land and the material-man.4 The claim of a mechanic to perpetuate a lien may be filed after a judicial sale of the premises, if in time.5 10. When Time of Filing Lien Begins to Run.-The time allowed 1. Conroy v. Perry, 26 Kan. 472; Conway v. Crook, 66 Md. 290; Kruse v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 424; Davis v. Livingston, 29 Cal. 283; Walker v. Hauss-Higo, I Cal. 183, 185; Bottomly v. Grace Church, 2 Cal. 90, 91; Shackelford v. Beck, So Va. 573, 578; Jessup v. Atlantic etc. R. Co., 3 Woods (U. S.) 441; Hooper v. Flood, 54 Cal. 218. See Spruhen v. Stout, 52 Wis. 517. A statement for a mechanics' lien filed four months before the completion of the building or improvement is not filed within the time prescribed by statute, and is not sufficient to create a lien. Convoy v. Perry, 26 Kan. 472. Cumming's lien was filed on October 22nd, 1884; complainant's on October 25th, and Cartwright's on November 13th. Each of these claimants issued a summons on his lien, but only Cartwright endorsed thereon the date of issuing the summons, as required by the statute. He d, that this omission of the other claimants avoided their liens. Currier v. Cumming, 40 N. J. Eq. 145. Where a material-man has filed his claim in a manner not authorized by law, he may file another in a legal form, the first being a nullity. Chambers v. Yarnall, 15 Pa. St. 265. Delivery of Materials at Different Dates. The lumber furnished by plaintiff for the erection of defendants' building was delivered in five parcels of nearly equal value-one on the 12th, one on the 14th, one on the 17th, one on the 20th, and one on the 28th days of September, and the sworn statement for lien was filed for record on the 25th day of November of the same year. Held, that the same constituted but one delivery, and that the lien was filed in due time to cover the whole. Ballow v. Black, 17 Neb. 389. Under Rev. St. Tex., art. 3165. providing that in order to secure a mechanics' lien the person claiming it must record his contract within six months after the debt becomes due; and article 3166, providing for the recording of “a sworn account" when there is no written contract-the recording of a note from the owner of a house, which recites that it is in settlement for account for lumber," is not a sufficient compli ance with the statute to preserve the lien. Lyon v. Elser (Tex.), 12 S. W. Rep. 177. Death of Owner -No lien arises from filing the claim after the death of the owner of the property. Brown v. Zeiss, 9 Daly (N. Y.) 240. 2. State v. Mexican Gulf R. Co., 5 La. An. 333; Delaware R. Construc tion Co. v. Davenport etc. R. Co., 46 Iowa 406; Bear v. Burlington etc R. Co., 48 Iowa 619; Boston v. Chesapeake etc. R. Co., 76 Va. 180; 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 263; Arkansas Cent. R. Co. v. McKay, 30 Ark. 682; Lounsbury v. Iowa etc. R. Co., 49 Iowa 255: Lyon v. New York etc. R. Co., 127 Mass. 101; Welch v. Porter & Co., 63 Ala. 225; Mulloy v. Lawrence, 31 Mo. 583. Question for the Jury.-"That the contract was made on the 16th of April, 1841, and the work done between said 16th and 29th August, 1842," is sufficient, it being a question for the jury whether it is filed within six months after completion. Driesbach v. Keller, 2 Pa. St. 77. 3. Patrick v. Faulke, 45 Mo. 312. for filing a claim usually begins to run when the materials are furnished and the work is completed.1 After a contract for work is substantially performed there must be no unnecessary or unreasonable delay in fully completing the work to be done, and any work done after such delay will not be considered in fixing the time allowed for recording the lien.2 When additional work is done, at the request of the owner to make it satisfactory, the time required therefor extends the time for filing the lien.3 If the materials are furnished under an entire contract, to be paid for in a gross sum, when all should be delivered, and they are supplied in portions at successive times, they cannot be deemed to have been furnished so as to set the time running for filing the lien until all are delivered.4 11. Expiration of Time for Filing Lien.-An improvident payment by the owner to the contractor, before the time within which liens may be filed, will of course be no defence against a lien. But where the owner has taken all proper steps to protect himself, and the house is completed within the contract time, and openly accepted as completed, from the contractor, by the owner and architect-this is a matter of which the subcontractors are bound to take notice; and if they delay filing their lien claims beyond a 1. White v. Chaffin, 32 Ark. 59; Sparks v. Butte Co. Gravel Min. Co., 55 Cal. 389; Dingley v. Greene, 54 Cal. 333; Cox v. Western Pacific R. Co., 44 Cal. 18; s. c., 47 Cal. 87; Davis v. Bullard, 32 Kan. 234; Conroy v. Perry, 26 Kan. 472; Catlin v. Douglass, 33 Fed. Rep. 569; Bashor v. Nordyke & Marmon Co., 25 Kan. 222; Keltzell v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 435; Stebed v. Stock, 31 Mo. 456; Worthen v. Cleaveland, 129 Mass. 570; Bartlett v. Kingan, 19 Pa. St. 341; Catlin v. Douglass, 33 Fed. Rep. 569. Where the contract to build a house is really incomplete, where the work is prosecuted from time to time as materials may be provided, or as the progress of other work may require, the mechanic is not required to file his lien within six months of the termination of each detached piece of work, but within six months of the completion of the whole work. Squires v. Fithian, 27 Mo. 134. Where the written contract, under which work is done or materials are furnished at a stipulated price, provides that such price shall "be payable, when the job is completed, in satisfactory six months' paper, interest added," the four months, within which legal process is to be commenced; under the 4th section of "the mechanics' lien law," be gins to run from the maturity of the six months' paper provided for by the contract as the time of payment under the same, and not from the completion of the job. Wheeler v. Schroeder, 4 R. I. 383. Where materials are furnished under an entire contract, it is sufficient that a claim be filed within six months from the consummation of the contract. Fourth Baptist Church v. Trout, 28 Pa. St. 153; Bolton's Appeal, 3 Grant (Pa.) 204; Geiss V. Rapp, 14 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 116; Hill's Estate, 2 Clark (Pa.) 96. 2. Flint v. Raymond, 41 Conn. 510. Under a contract to build a dwelling house, the petitioners had finished it on the 7th of April, with the exception of a few hours' work embraced in the contract, which was not done until the 27th of the following September, no reason being shown for the delay. Held, that the sixty days allowed them by the statute for filing their lien was to be reckoned from the 7th of April, and not from the 27th of September. Sanford v. Frost, 41 Conn. 617. 3. McIntyre v. Trautner, 63 Cal. 429; St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. O'Reilly, 85 Ill. 546. See Harmon's Appeal, 124 Pa. St. 624. 4. Haden v. Buddensiek, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 3. time to be counted from the date at which the house was completed, and was openly accepted and delivered as completed, according to the contract terms, the property of the owner, who has in good faith paid the contractor in full according to the terms of his contract, at the expiration of the time within which liens can be filed, counting from the completion of the house, should be relieved from liability. So a contractor's lien may be lost by failing to file lien within the time prescribed by statute, unless excuse for the delay is satisfactorily shown.2 12. When Not Required.-If, after contracts are made by an owner with parties who are to furnish materials for or to do work upon a building, and they have commenced to perform their contracts, the erection of the building is stopped by the owner, so that it is not completed, the lien in favor of the workmen and for the parties furnishing material, for compensation and for work done and materials furnished, is existing and valid without their filing their claims within the time prescribed by statute, or though they do not file them, and these liens will have priority over any liens upon the building created after work was commenced under such contracts.3 13. Filing Lien Against Railroad.-A mechanics' lien against a railroad must be filed against the whole road as an entirety and not merely against the section upon which the work has been done. The lien must be filed once for all on an entire contract. successive liens cannot be filed from time to time as the work progresses. 5 14. Filing Lien Against Leasehold Interest.-A lien, filed, must 1. Scott . Cook, 8 Mo. App. 193; Andrews v. Burdick, 62 Iowa 714; Winter v. Hudson, 54 Iowa 336; Stewart v. Wright, 52 Iowa 335; Flint v. Raymond, 41 Conn. 510, 514. A contract for building a house was fulfiled November 15th, except setting up a pump and a well curb, and plastering around the mantelpiece which were not done til February 27th, the delay being by request of the owner. Held, that as against him the date when the work was completed was February 27th. Cole v. Uhe, 46 Conn. 296, 298. A mechanics' lien by a subcontractor cannot be filed when the only items charged as furnished within six months are soapstone hearths, to supply the place of defective hearths previously furnished, and a small portable stove which is not part of the building. Woman's Homeopathic Assoc. v. Harrison, 120 Pa. St. 28. 2. Sanford v. Frost, 41 Conn. 617, 618; Flint v. Raymond, 41 Conn. 510, 514. 3. Merchants' etc. Saving Bank v. Dashiell, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 616. 4. Cox v. Western Pacific R. Co., 44 Cal. 18; Knapp v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 74 Mo. 374; 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 394; Ireland 7. Atchison etc. R. Co., 79 Mo. 572; Cranston v. Union Trust Co., 75 Mo. 29: 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 638. Under the act of March 21st, 1873, embodied in sections 3200 to 3216, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes of 1879, a lien for labor and materials cannot be enforced against that portion or section of a railroad only for which they were furnished. The lien is against the whole road, and the whole must be sold. It is otherwise, however, as to the rolling stock and other movable property. While all of these are subject to the lien, only so much of them need be sold as may be necessary to satisfy the judgment. Knapp v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 74 Mo. 374; 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 394. 5. Cox v. Western Pacific Co., 44 Cal. 18. |