Conn. 544; Cornell v. Barney, 94 N. Y. 394; Kelley v. Pank of South Carolina, 1 McMull. (S. Car.) Ch. 431; Miller v. Hollingsworth, 33 Iowa 224; Knapp v. Brown, 11 Abb. Pr., N. S. (N. Y.) 118; Rogers v. Phillips, 8 Ark. 366; s. c., 47 Am. Dec. 727; Greenough v. Nichols, 30 Vt. (1 Shaw) 768; Harlan v. Rand, 27 Pa. St. 511; Woodward v. McLaren, 100 Ind. 586; Wetherill v. Ohlendorf, 61 Ill. 283; Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Osborn, 72 Iowa 472; Duff v. Huffman, 63 Pa. St. 191; Horton v. Carlisle, 2 Disney (Ohio) 184; Hodgson v. Billson, 12 Kan. 568; Kitson v. Crump, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 41; Crawfordsville v. Brundage, 57 Ind. 262; Harlan v. Rand, 27 Pa. St. 511; reversing s. c., 2 Phila. 160. See Young v. Elliott, 2 Phila. (Pa.) 352. In the city of New York, the lien for work done or materials furnished in the erection of buildings, in the city of New York applies only to the creditors of the original contractor. Wood V. Donaldson, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 550; s. c., 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 395.

1. Childers v. Greenville, 69 Ala. 103; Geiger v. Hussey, 63 Ala. 338; Whittier v. Hollister, 64 Cal. 283; Stout v. McLachlin, 38 Kan. 120; Loukey v. Cook, 15 Nev. 58; Hunter v. Truckee Lodge, 14 Nev. 24; Graf v. Cunningham, 109 N. Y. 369; Geddes v. Bowden, 19 S. Car. 1; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Howison, 81 Va. 125; Griswold v. Wright, 69 Wis. 1; Doreston v. Krieg, 66 Wis. 604; Chapin v. Persse etc. Paper Works, 30 Conn. 461; Weeks v. Walcott, 15 Gray (Mass.) 54; Cahoon v. Levy, 6 Cal. 295; Hannon v. Logan, 14 Mo. App. 33; Kirby v. McGarry, 16 Wis 68; Harbeck v. Southwell, 18 Wis. 418; Stephens v. Ward, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 337; Lumbard v. Syracuse etc. R. Co., 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 609; Whittier v. Wilbur, 48 Cal. 175; Spalding v. Dodge, 6 Mackey (D. C) 289; Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 486.

One furnishing materials to a contractor, who is also surety for the faith ful performance of the contract by such contractor, is, upon a departure from the terms of the contract of suretyship by the person for whom the building is to be erected, entitled to enforce his lien upon such building. Simonson v. Grant, 36 Minn. 439.

Alabama.-Under the statute giving

a lien to mechanics, employees and ma terial-men (Code, §§ 3450-3461), the lien of a material man for supplies furnished by him under a contract, not with the owner or proprietor, but with the contractor who, under his contract, was to supply the proper materials, exists only when there is a balance due from the owner or proprietor to the contractor, and extends only to such balance. Childers v. Greenville, 69 Ala. 103; Geiger v. Hussey, 63 Ala. 338.

California.-Statute allowing liens to material men is valid, provided aggregate liens do not exceed original contract price. Whittier v. Wilber, 48 Cal. 175; Quale v. Moon, 48 Cal. 478. Where a building is constructed under a contract, no lien exists in favor of one who furnishes materials to a subcontractor, beyond the amount due from the owner to the original contractor. Whittier v. Hollister, 64 Cal. 283; Blythe v. Poultney, 31 Cal. 234; Cahoon v. Levy, 6 Cal. 295; Brennen v. Marsh, 10 Cal. 435; McAlpin v. Duncan, 16 Cal. 127.

Under the Mechanics' Lien act (of 1862), the employees of a subcontractor cannot subject the building to a lien as principals, but only under the original contract; and they cannot enforce such lien to the extent of what is due to the contractor, but only to the extent of what is due from the contractor to the subcontractor, provided the account between them, evidencing the amount due, is consistent with the terms of their contract. Dore v. Sellers, 27 Cal. 588.

When the owner of property had contracted with another to perform certain work and furnish the materials therefor, with an agreement that the contractor should not encumber the property with any mechanics' liens or debts, held, that the owner was not liable in a proceeding to enforce such lien by a subcontractor; and where such subcontractor in a replication admitted a knowledge of an agreement between the owner and contractor, such knowledge was held sufficient to put him on enquiry as to the contents of the writing, and charge him with notice thereof. Bowen v. Aubrey, 22 Cal. 566.

Colorado. The expression "due or to

become due under the contract," used in section 1657 of the General Laws (1877), entitles the subcontractor to be paid out of moneys that may become due the contractor for labor or materials furnished by other persons subsequent to the subcontractor's lien notice, but under the same principal contract. Tabor v. Armstrong, 9 Colo. 285.

Georgia-A statute giving a mechanics' lien to mason and carpenters will not be extended by construction to owners of mills, who furnish lumber. Pitts v. Boma, 33 Ga. 96.

Illinois. Although a mechanic or workman performing labor, or party furnishing materials for a subcontrac tor, is not entitled, under the Illinois statute, to any lien, for the lien given does not extend further than to the subcontractor, yet, where a court of equity acquires jurisdiction of the fund due a subcontractor on a bill of interpleader, in which the persons perform ing labor or furnishing materials for the subcontractor are made parties, it is the duty of the court to adjust the equities of all parties interested in the fund, as they have an equitable claim on the fund. Newhall v. Kastens, 70 Ill. 156.

Indiana. Persons furnishing material for, or performing labor upon, a building may have a lien therefor, though furnished not to the owner but to his contractor. Hamilton v. Naylor, 71 Ind. 171. A complaint by a subcontractor to enforce a mechanics' lien and seeking a personal judgment against the owner of the building for a debt created by the contractor, must show ownership, the service of the notice provided for in section 649, supra, and that, when served, the owner was indebted to the contractor. Lawton v. Case, 73 Ind. 60.

Iowa. A subcontractor cannot establish a mechanics' lien without having adjudicated an unliquidated account against the principal contractor. Vreeland v. Elsworth, 71 Iowa 347. See Parmenter v. Childs, 12 Iowa (4 With.) 22; Jones etc, Lumber Co. v. Murphy, 64 Iowa 165; Winter v. Hudson, 54 Iowa 336; Gilchrist v. Anderson, 59 Iowa 274; Stewart v. Wright, 52 Iowa 335.

The owner of an improvement who knows that subcontractors are furnishing labor and materials cannot deprive them of their rights under the mechanics' lien law by paying to the contractor, or to subsequent subcontractors on the contractor's orders the whole contract

price. Chicago Lumber Co. v. Woodside. 71 Iowa 359; Fay & Co. v. Orison, 60 Iowa 136.

Kansas. A subcontractor has a lien for materials furnished for a building under agreement with the principal contractor. Stout v. McLachlin, 38

Kan. 120.

Louisiana. To entitle a materialman to a privilege on the work, he must have sold his materials directly to the owner or his agent or his subcontractor; and a sale to a third person who conveys to such owner, etc., is not sufficient. Woodward v. American Exposition R. Co., 39 La. An. 566.

Minnesota. The provisions of Gen. Stat. 1878, ch. 90, § 18, as to the form and contents of the affidavit of claim for a mechanics' lien, apply equally to claims for liens in favor of subcontractors under section 2, as to those in favor of the original contractors with the owners, under section I of the chapter. Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 486.

Mississippi. When any contractor or master workman shall refuse to pay any person who may have furnished materials used in the erection of a building or improvement, or the wages of any journeyman or laborer employed by him therein, such person, or such journeyman or laborer, may give notice in writing to the owner of such building or improvement of the amount due; and thereupon the amount that may be due by such owner to the contractor or master builder shall be bound and liable in the hands of such owner for the payment of the sum so claimed. Rivers v. Mulholland, 62 Miss. 766.

N. Y. Laws 1885 provides that the owner shall not be liable to pay by reason of the liens more than the sum which he has stipulated to pay and which remains unpaid. Held, that his liability is limited to the amount earned, not to the amount which happens to be payable when the liens are filed. Van Clief v. Van Vechten, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 304.

Ohio. Material furnished to a contractor by a third party is not within the mechanics' lien law, unless furnished under an agreement that it is to be used in the construction of the particular building. 1858, Horton v. Carlisle, 2 Disney (Ohio) 184.

Pennsylvania. - One who furnishes lumber to a person who represents himself to be a contractor for the erection of a certain building cannot enforce a lien on the building as against the owner where the owner has done

nothing to mislead. Brown v. Cowan, 110 Pa. St. 588. See Savoy v. Jones, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 343.

Rhode Island.-Under R. I. Pub. Stat., ch. 177, a subcontractor can have a mechanics' lien for the labor of himself and employees, but not for the materials furnished by him. Hatch v. Faucher, 15 R. I. 459.

South Carolina.-A subcontractor of a subcontractor is not entitled under

ch. 120, § 7, of the Gen. Stat. of S. Car. 1872, to a lien for labor performed and materials furnished upon the building erected. Geddes v. Bowden, 19 S. Car. I.

Virginia. Where notice and affidavit is furnished, as required by law, by the subcontractor to the owner, it makes the latter liable for the amount named in the affidavit, without regard to the state of accounts between him and the general contractor. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Howison, 81 Va. 125.

Wisconsin. The statute relating to mechanics' lien extends to a subcontractor who has performed services or furnished materials in the construction of a building on the credit of the original contractor, and it is not limited to the amount due him at the time he gives notice thereof, but includes all that may afterwards become due him. Griswold v. Wright, 69 Wis. 1.

Under section 3315, R. S., the lien of a subcontractor is not restricted to the amount due for work done or materials furnished within thirty days preceding the giving of the notice therein prescribed, but includes the whole of his claim for labor or materials. Doreston v. Krieg, 66 Wis. 604.

The lien of a subcontractor under § 3314, R. S., does not extend to machinery furnished by him and placed in a building constituting a part of the water works of a city. Wilkinson v. Hoffman, 61 Wis. 637.

1. Lewis v. Williams, 3 Minn. 151; Emmet v. Rotary Mill Co., 2 Minn. 286; Parmenter v. Childs, 12 Iowa (4 With.) 22; Vreeland v. Elsworth, 71 Iowa 437. 472.

2. Schenck 7. Uber, S1 Pa. St. 31; Kitson v. Crump, 9 Phila. 41; Singerly v. Doerr, 62 Pa. St. 9; Derrickson v. Nagle, 2 Phila. (Pa.) 120.

3. Geiger & Co. v. Hussey, 63 Ala. 338; Wilson v. Sleeper, 131 Mass. 177; Winder v. Caldwell, 14 How. (U. S.) 434; Van Pelt v. Hartough, 31 N. J. L. 331; Simonson v. Grant, 36 Minn. 439. Compare Bryan v. Whitford, 66 Ill. 33.

Under the statute giving a lien to mechanics, employees and material-men (Code Ala., §§ 3440-3461), a lumber merchant, furnishing materials for any building, erection or improvement on land, has a lien on such building, etc., and on the land on which it is situated, whether such materials are furnished to

the mechanic who has contracted to do the work, or directly to the owner or proprietor under a contract made with him personally. Geiger & Co. v. Hussey, 63 Ala. 338.

A man who has furnished materials to one contractor jointly and indiscriminately, for the use of two buildings owned by different parties, has a right to divide his bill and file a separate lien against each building. Harper v. Keely, 17 Pa. St. (5 Harris) 234; Davis v. Farr, 13 Pa. St. (1 Harris) 167.

1. Foster 7. Dohle, 17 Neb. 631; Harland v. Rand, 27 Pa. St. 511; Odd Fellows Hall v. Masser, 24 Pa. St. 507; Hinchman v. Graham, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 170; Presbyterian Church v. Allison, 10 Pa. St. 413; Olympic Theatre, 2 Browne (Pa.) 275; Wallace v. Melchior, 2 Browne (Pa.) 104; Greenway v. Turner, Md. 296; Chicago Art. Well Co. v. Corey, 60 Ill. 73; Marble v. Jones etc. Lumber Co., 19 Neb. 732; Morrison v. Hancock, 40 Mo. 561. Compare Houghton v. Blake, 5 Čal. 240; Holmes v. Richet, 56 Cal. 307; Taggard v. Buckmore, 42 Me. 77; Perkins v. Pike, 42 Me. 141; Hunter v. Blanchard, 18 Ill. 318; Phillips v. Wright, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 342; Weaver v. Sells, io Kan. 1873; Hill v. Bishop, 25 Ill. 349.

A lien cannot be enforced against a building for materials furnished to the contractor but not put into the building. Deardorff v. Everhartt, 74 Mo. 37.

Nor is a lien created upon a building for which materials are expressly furnished, if they do not in fact go into the building. Chapin v. Persse etc. Paper Works, 30 Conn. 461.

A man who merely sells lumber for a building is not embraced in Gould's Dig., ch. 112, § 1, which provides that

"all artisans builders and mechanics of every description who shall perform any work," etc., "shall have an absolute lien on such building for such work, as well as for materials furnished by them," etc. Duncan v. Bateman, 23 Ark. 327; Boutner v. Kent, 23 Ark. 389.

2. Choteau v. Thompson, 2 Ohio St. 114; Cotes v. Shorey, 8 Iowa 416; Lawton v. Case, 73 Ind. 60; Presbyterian Church v. Allison, 10 Pa Št. 413; Odd Fellows' Hall v. Masser, 24 Pa. St. 507; s. c., 64 Am. Dec. 675; House v. Carroll, 37 Mo. 578; Lanier v. Bell, S1 N. Car. 337; Wetherill v. Ohlendorf, 61 Ill. 283.

3. Rogers v. Currier, 13 Gray (Mass.) 129; Hill v. Bishop, 25 IIl. 349: Mehan v. Thompson, 71 Me. 492; Fuller v. Nickerson, 69 Me. 228, 236; Weaver v. Sells, 10 Kan. 609; Hills v. Elliott, 16 S. & R. (Pa.) 56; Esslinger v. Huebner, 22 Wis. 632; Delahay v. Goldie, 17 Kan. 265.

The mere sale of building materials, without reference to the building in which they are to be used, does not create a lien upon the building in which they are in fact afterwards used. Chapin v. Persse etc. Paper Works, 30 Conn. 461.

A material-man cannot enforce a lien against a building if the materials were not furnished upon the credit of the building, but upon that of the contractor; and even if furnished upon the credit of the building, if the contract was unfairly made for an exorbitant price, the material-man could only recover as against the building what the materials were fairly worth. Odd Fellows' Hall v. Masser, 24 Pa. St. 507; s. c., 64 Am. Dec. 675

4. Colman v. Goodnow, 36 Minn. 9. 5. Miller v. Whitelaw, 28 Mo. App.

639.

1. Greenwood v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., 2 Swan (Tenn.) 130.

2. Anderson v. Dillage, 47 N. Y. 678; Montandon v. Deas, 14 Ala. 33; Stevens v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 476; Wazar v. Briscoe, 38 Mich. 587; Monroe v. West, 12 Iowa 119; Redman v. Williamson, 2 Iowa 488; Peabody v. Eastern Methodist Society, 5 Allen (Mass.) 540; Galbreath v. Ďavidson, 25 Ark. 490; Prutzman v. Bushong, 83 Pa. St. 526.

Under the Missouri statute of 1835 (Rev. Code 107), by which a lien is given to mechanics employed in building a house upon land on which the house stands, a lien on the land does not attach unless the owner of the land cause the building to be erected. Sibley v. Casey, 6 Mo. 164.

It is indispensable to a mechanics' lien that the party with whom the contract is made shall have some interest in the land upon which the building is to be erected or repaired, etc. This interest may be a fee simple, an estate for life, or it may be any estate less than a fee. Tracy v. Rogers, 69 Ill. 662.

A workman, performing labor on a building under a contract with one who is employed by the owner of the building, but who is not the owner of the land, and has not contracted with such owner for erecting, altering or repairing the building or for the purchase of the land, has no lien, either on the land or on the building, to secure the payment of his wages, by virtue of Stat. 1851, ch. 343. Belding v. Cushing, 1 Gray (Mass.) 576; Howard v. Veazie, 3 Gray (Mass.) 233.

Under the lien act of Pennsylvania of 1st of April, 1803. to give a material-man a lien, his contract must have been with the real owner of the land; an agreement with a third person, who is to furnish the owner, is not sufficient. Steinmetz v. Boudinot, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 541. The act does not refer to buildings commenced before its passage. Steinmetz v. Boudinot, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 541. An action under such statute should be special, and state the

manner in which the defendant is liable. Anshutz v. McClelland, 5 Watts (Pa.) 487.

Word "Owner" Defined.-The word "owner," as used in the mechanics' lien law of New York, is the correlative of contractor, and means the person who employs the contractor, and for whom the work is done under the contract. McDermott v. Palmer, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 9.

The word "owner" in the first section of the act "to create a lien in favor of mechanics and others in certain cases," is not limited to an owner in fee, but includes also an owner of a leasehold estate. If the ownership is in fee, the lien is on the fee; if it is of a less estate, the lien is on such smaller estate. Choteau v. Thompson, 2 Ohio St. 114.

A widow to whom dower has never been assigned is not "the owner" of any of the land in which she is entitled to dower within the meaning of the Mechanics' Lien act. Ermul v. Kullok, 3 Kan. 499.

One in possession of real estate under a bond for a deed is so far the "owner" as to enable a mechanic contracting to acquire a lien on the premises and his right will not be prejudiced by the subsequent acquisition of the full title. Monroe v. West, 12 Iowa 119.

One in possession of, and exercising acts of ownership over, the property is prima facie such an owner as will subject his interest therein to the lien; and he cannot demand that the extent of his title be proved. Chambers v'. Benoist, 25 Mo. App. 520.

An owner of land, who agrees to advance a builder sums of money to be applied towards the erection of buildings on the land, and when the buildings are finished to convey the land to the builder in fee, receiving a mortgage for his advances, is not an owner of the building under the lien law. Miller v. Clark, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 543; Loonie v. Hogan (in court of appeals), 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 681.

Where the building is erected by a