the commencement of the building. Where there is no written contract for the construction of the building, the several liens of the material-men and laborers do not relate back to the day of the commencement of the building, but each lien relates back to and takes effect on the day the particular labor was commenced or the material began to be furnished for which the lien is sought to be enforced.2 2. Lien of Subcontractor.-If the proper notice, etc., be filed, the lien of a subcontractor attaches from the time of the commencement of service rendered, thus superseding the rights of general creditors of the first contractor, who have garnished the debt in the employer's hands.3 3. Filing Notice. In some States the lien of a mechanic for work done or materials furnished in the construction of a building is not acquired, that it does not attach until notice of the intention to hold the lien is filed in the recorder's office of the proper county.4 4. Assignment of the Property.-Where the owner, before the fence, will not be deemed a sufficient commencement of work as against a bona fide mortgagee. Middletown Savings Bk. v. Fellows, 42 Conn. 36. 1. Brown v. Smith, 2 Browne (Pa.) 229. 2. Barker Reynolds, 44 Cal. 519, 520. 3. Tuttle v. Montford, 7 Cal. 358. Under the provisions of the statute relating to mechanics' liens in the county of St. Louis, the lien attaches in favor of a subcontractor at the time of performing the work, or of furnishing the materials for which such lien is claimed; and the owner, at the time the lien attaches, is the person to whom the notice required by the act is to be given. Kuleman v. Schuler, 35 Mo. 142. 4. Robinson v. Marney, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 329; Gable v. Gale, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 218; Green v. Green, 16 Ind. 253; Waldo v. Walters, 17 Ind. 534; Sharke v. Clifford, 44 Ind. 346; Wilson v. Hopkins, 51 Ind. 231, 233; Hicks v. Branton, 21 Ärk. 186; Carson v. White, 6 Gill (Md.) 17; Millikin v. Armstrong, 17 Ind. 456; Bolton's Appeal, 3 Grant (Va.) 204; Russell v. Bell, 44 Pa. St. (8 Wright) 47. One furnishes materials to a building commenced after June, 1835, files no claim, sues the contractor within six months after furnishing the materials, and obtains judgment giving the owner no notice of the suit. Held, that the purchaser of such lot at a sheriff's sale, under such judgment, made within two years of the commencement of the building took nothing. Rogers v. Klingler, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 332; Twelves v. Williams, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 485; Mustin v. Vanhook, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 574 In Indiana, under the statute creating mechanics' liens, the mere fact of materials furnished and work done do not constitute a lien; it is also essential that the notice of the claim of lien should be filed within sixty days, from which time only the lien attaches. Green v. Green, 16 Ind. 253. In Maryland, no mechanic, in virtue of the act of 1838, ch. 205, has a lien on the house which he has built or repaired, unless he has filed in the office of the clerk of the county court a statement of his demand, and that statement has given, not only the sum due, but also the nature and kind of work done, and the kind and amount of materials furnished, and the time when the work was done and materials furnished. Carson v. White, 6 Gill (Md.) 17. In Minnesota, the filing of an account under Gen. Stat., ch. 90, § 7, operates as a lien "from the commencement of such labor or the furnishing of such materials," even as against a mortgage executed to a third party before a part of the materials were furnished, and though not put into the building until after the filing of the account. Milner v. Norris, 13 Minn. 455. In New York, the lien is acquired upon filing the notice with the county clerk. Quimby v. Sloan, 2 Abb. (N. Ÿ.) Pr. 93, 99. filing of a notice of lien, assigns the property, bona fide, in trust for the benefit of creditors, no lien can be subsequently acquired, under the statute, by the mechanics and the material-men.1 VII. AMOUNT SECURED BY LIEN-1. Contractors.-The amount secured by lien is the amount due according to the terms of the contract between the parties. Under a statute providing 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, his liability is limited to the amount earned and not to the amount which happens to be payable when the liens are filed.3 If the proprietor contracts to pay a certain sum of money to the contractor after the building should be completed and he pays it in good faith before the completion, leaving nothing more to be paid to the contractor, he cannot be compelled to pay any part of it again for work or materials procured by the contractor after such payment.4 2. Subcontractors. In the case of subcontractors a mechanics' lien for labor done and materials furnished attaches upon the building and appurtenances only for the amount the owner agreed to pay the head contractor. And this is limited in many of the States to the amount to which the owner is indebted to the principal contractor at the time of service or notice or may so become indebted thereafter." 1. Quimby v. Sloan, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 594; s. c., 2 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 93; Jackson v. Sloan, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 616; s. c., 2 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 104. But see Oates v. Haley, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 338; Mandeville v. Reed, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 173. 2. Dore v. Sellers, 27 Cal. 588; Smith v. Coe, 2 Hilton (N. Y.) 365; Moore v. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. (Ñ. Y.) 292. See Derrickson v. Edwards, 29 N. J. L. 468. A person performing work is entitled to recover, not what he pays his workmen, with a percentage thereon, but a quantum meruit, and as to the materials furnished, a quantum valebant. Hauptman v. Catlin, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 729. In Illinois, the mechanic's or furnisher's lien attaches upon premises to the amount only of the material furnnished, which was actually used upon them. Hunter v. Blanchard, 18 Ill. 318. 3. Van Clief v. Van Vechten, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 304. 4. Spaulding v. Thompson etc. Soc., 27 Conn. 574. Under the mechanics' lien laws (Laws 1851 and 1863), of the city of New York, where the owner makes a voluntary payment in good faith to the con tractor, before the lien of a subcontractor is filed, it is a good payment as against the subcontractor, although by the terms of the contract the amount was not then due the subcontractor and did not become due until after the time when the lien notice was filed. But no voluntary payment made by the owner to the contractor after the subcontractor, or workman, has filed his notice to a lien can in anywise affect or impair the lien of the latter. Schneider v. Hobein, 41 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 232. In California, the owner is entitled to a credit against contractor of amount of liens paid to material-men. Whittier v. Wilbur, 48 Cal. 175; Ernst v. Cummings, 55 Cal. 179. 5. Ark. 4424; Ariz. 1885, 93, 10; Cal. 1885, 152, 1; Colo. 2146; Dak; Ill. 8229, Iowa 2134; Ida. Civ. C. 815; Kan. So, 631; Mich. 8377; Mass. 191, 2; Nev. 1875. 64, 10; N. Y. 1854, 402, 2; 1862, 478, 1; 1865, 778, 2; 1880, 143, 1; 1882, 410; 1809; Nev. 1875, 64, 10; Tenn. 2748; Tex. 3179; 1885, 66; Uta. C. Civ. P. 1057; Wash. 1966; W. Va. 1882, 64. 2; Wis. 3315; McAlpin v. Duncan, 16 Cal. 127. 6. Davis v. Livingston, 29 Cal. 283; Knowles v. Joost, 13 Cal. 620; McAlpin v. Duncan, 16 Cal. 127; Dore v. Sellers, 3. Extent of Land Covered by Lien.-The extent of the land covered by the lien is in many of the States, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Dakota, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Nebraska, Nevada, Mississippi, Oregon, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and District of Columbia, the land on which the building stands, with the lot or curtelages immediately about it and necessary for its use.1 In Georgia the 27 Cal. 591; Spaulding v. Thompson etc. Soc., 27 Conn. 574. See also Ala. Stat. 3449; Dak. C. Civ. P. 658; Ga. 1979; D. C. 709; Ky. 70, 5; Ill. 82. 33; La. D. 2882; Mich. 8379; N. Car. 1801; N. Y. 1875, 379, 1; Ohio 3201; Wis. There is no lien in favor of a mechanic for an excess due over the amount provided for in the recorded building contract. Potshuisky v. Krempkan, 26 Tex. 307. Wisconsin.-Under Rev. Stat., § 3315, a subcontractor's lien is not limited to the amount due the contractor at the time of giving notice of the lien, but extends to that falling due afterwards. Griswold v. Wright, 69 Wis. 1. 1. See Stimp. Am. Stat., § 1974; Derrickson v. Edwards, 29 N. J. L. 468. See Seitz v. Union Pac. R. Co., 16 Kan. 133; Gerard v. Birch, 28 N. J. Eq. 317; Browne v. Smith, 2 Browne (Pa.) 229. The lien does not extend beyond the ground necessary for the proper occupation and enjoyment of the house, according to the intention and design of the owner, at its commencement. Pernock v. Hoover, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 291. A claim against a church edifice cannot be made to include the adjoining burial ground. Beam V. Methodist Episcopal Church, 3 Clark 343. The lien extends to the parcel intended to be used with the whole building when finished, and not merely to that portion specially intended to be used in connection with the part actually erected. Hill v. La Crosse & R. Co., 11 Wis. 214. In Minnesota, a statutory lien cannot be acquired upon real property constituting the homestead of the owner, by reason of the furnishing of lumber for the erection of a dwelling house thereon; following Coleman v. Ballandi, 22 Minn. 144; Keller v. Struck, 31 Minn. 446. Connecticut. The lien of a mechanic includes not only the buildings on which his work was done, and the land on which they stand, but also the land about the building used with them, and necessarily or reasonably convenient to their use. Bank of Charleston v. Curtis, 18 Conn. 342; s. c., 46 Am. Dec. 325. Massachusetts.-A mechanics' lien, which by statute extends to the lot on which the building is situated, is not confined to that portion only of a large lot which is immediately connected with the building, although other separate buildings have been erected on the lot and leased to different tenar.ts, where the lot has not been subdivided by the owner, and an intention is apparent to keep it as one large lot. Quinby v. Durgin, 148 Mass. 104. In New Jersey, a carpenters' lien is not confined to the house on the gound it covers, but extends to so much of the tract of land on which the house is built, as, with the house, would be required to discharge it. Vandyne v. Vanness, 6 N. J. L. 485. A lien claim in Edwards v. Derrickson, 28 N. J. 29, was held to cover and attach to, as being part of the lot and curtilage whereon the building was erected, about fifty-three acres of land which had always been treated and sold as one lot of mill property, although part of it was unenclosed, and was chiefly open, broken, back land. GREEN, C. J., dissenting. In Illinois, the statute declares a mechanics' lien shall be a lien on the lot or tract of land on which the erections are made, there is no error in making a decree in respect to the erection of two buildings on a United States survey of four hundred acres, extended to the entire tract. St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. O'Reilly. 85 Ill. 546. See Van Lone v. Whittemore, 19 Ill. App. 447. The lien for work and machinery in a mill does not extend to lots across the street from the mill, merely because they were to be used for purposes connected with it. Paddock v. Stout, 121 Ill. 571. law fixes the lien on the improvements and a verdict that extends the lien over the entire premises, including the ground, is contrary to law.1 4. Lien Upon Separate Parcels.-One who furnishes materials or labor for use in the erection of a block of buildings under one contract, is entitled to a mechanics' lien on the whole block.2 But when a building is erected upon a lot separated by a street from another lot a mechanics' lien will not extend to the other lot although there may be structures on it which may be used in connection with the building.3 VIII. PRIORITY AND SUBORDINATION TO OTHER LIENS.-The lien laws give a preference to the mechanics' lien over all liens or encumbrances attaching subsequently to the commencement of the building, or the putting up of the machine. So the mechanics' Pennsylvania. In an issue directed by the court between judgment and mechanics' lien creditors, under the Pennsylvania statute of 1836, it is the province of the jury to ascertain, and determine by their verdict, what part of the ground is necessary for the convenient use of the building for the purposes for which it was intended, and to which the lien of the mechanic is to extend. Keppel v. Jackson, 3 W. & S. Pa. 320. In Virginia, the statute gives a lien not only on the buildings, but also on "so much land therewith as shall be necessary for the convenient use and enjoyment of the premises." In the absence of proof to the contrary, a lot in a town, such as is described in this case, is necessary to the convenient and reasonable enjoyment of the buildings put upon it. Pairo v. Bethell, 75 Va. 825. South Carolina.-A mechanics' lien upon a "building or structure, and upon the interest of the owner thereof in the lot of land upon which the same is situated," held to include several adjoining lots enclosed by a common fence, and used and controlled by the owner of the building for one common and avowed purpose, though as to some he was not the absolute owner. Ex parte Davis, 9 S. Car. 204. 1. Gaskill v. Davis, 66 Ga. 665. 2. Brabazon v. Allen, 41 Conn. 361, 363: Marston v. Kenyon, 44 Conn. 349, 355; Lyon v. Logan, 68 Tex. 521. See Childs v. Anderson, 128 Mass. 108. 3. Stout v. Sower, 22 Ill. App. 65; McDonald v. Minneapolis Lumber Co., 28 Minn. 262. 4. Wells v. Canton Co., 3 Md. 234; White v. Chaffin, 32 Ark. 59; Tuttle v. Montford, 7 Cal. 358; Dubois v. Wil Bor son, 21 Mo. 213; Thomas & Co. v. Mowers, 27 Kan. 265; Hahn's Appeal, 39 Pa. St. 409; Gault v. Deming, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 337; Austin v. Wohler, 5 Ill. App. 300; Denmead v. Bank of Baltimore, 9 Md. 179; Pride v. Viles, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 125; Jones v. Hancock, 1 Md. Ch. Decis. 187; Stout v. Sower, 22 Ill. App. 65; Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Bormans, 19 Mo. App. 664; Great Western Planing Mill Co. v. mans, 19 Mo. 671; Meyer v. Construction Co., 100 U. S. 457; Lenel's Succession, 34 La. An. 868; Lee v. Cook, 2 Wyoming 305; Rosenthal v. Maryland Brick Co., 61 Md. 590; Thompson v. Memphis etc. R. Co., 24 Fed. Rep. 338; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Union Rolling Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702; 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 626; Trustees Caldwell Institute v. Young, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 582; North etc. Church v. Jevne, 32 Ill. 214; Mark 7. Murphy, 76 Ind. 534; Marston Kenyon, 44 Conn. 349, 356; Phoenix M. Ins. Co. v. Blatchen, 6 Ill. App. 621; Lenderking v. Rosenthal, 63 Md. 28; Develin v. Mack, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 94; Davis v. Bilsland, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 659; Hall v. Hinckley, 32 Wis. 362. 363; Botsford v. New Haven etc. R. Co., 41 Conn. 454; Mut. Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Rowland, 26 N. J. Eq. 389; Kendall v. MacFarland, 4 Oregon 292; Denkel's Estate, 3 Luz. L. Obs. 125; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Paulison, 28 N. J. Eq. 304; Haenssler v. Thomas, 4 Mo. App. 463; McCullough v. Caldwell, 3 Eng. (Ark.) 231; Keating Implement & Machine Co. v. Marshall Electric Light & Power Co. (Tex.), 12 S. W. Rep. 489; Davis v. Bilsland, 18 Wall. (U.S.) 659; Merrigan . English (Mont.), 22 Pac. Rep. 454. Under the provisions of article 27, lien given by the statutes do not override or interfere with prior or bona fide liens. A subsequent lien may be a lien acquired after the making of the contract by the mechanic.2 chapter 8o, Compiled Laws of 1879, the lien of a mechanic, or material-man, for work done or material furnished, has preference to "all other liens and encumbrances" which may attach to or upon the lands or buildings, subsequent to the commencement of the building, or the making of the repairs, or the furnishing of the material; and the words of the statute, "all other liens and encumbrances," also embrace convevances. Warden v. Sabins, 36 Kan. 165. While it is true that, under section 2135, subdivision 4. of Miller's Code, a mechanics' lien will, under certain circumstances, have priority over a senior mortgage, yet this provision has no application to a case where the mortgage was foreclosed and the premises sold thereunder, before the materials for which the lien is claimed were furnished. Shepardson v. Johnson, 60 Iowa 239. Georgia.-Where a laborer neither recorded nor foreclosed his lien as such, but brought complaint on an open account for the amount due him, and recovered judgment, his claim was postponed to judgments junior to the performance of the work but senior to the Jate of his judgment. Love v. Cox, 68 Ga. 269. In Iowa, under Rev., § 185, amended by laws 1862, ch. 3, a mechanics' lien for labor performed or materials furnished holds good as against intervening encumbrances for the period of 90 days from the date of the last item, without filing a statement of the claim as provided by statue. After that time the filing is necessary in order to prevent encumbrances from gaining priority. Evans v. Tripp, 35 Iowa 371; Gilbert v. Thorp. 72 Iowa 714. See Bear v. Burlington C. R. & N. R. Co., 48 Iowa 619. Ín Pennsylvania, the limitation of a statute requiring claims of employees and others to be recorded within six months after the same shall have fallen due, in order to secure their priority, is not suspended by the pendency of a suit in which receivers have been appointed; but the limitation is suspended by a decree of reference to a master to take an account of debts and their priorities against the defendant com pany. Philadelphia Bank v. Shenandoah Iron Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 436. 1. Choteau v. Thompson, 2 Ohio St. 114; Curtis Bro. & Co. v. Broadwell, 66 Iowa 662; German Bank v. Schloth, 59 Iowa 316; Green v. Green, 16 Ind. 253; Jessup v. Stone, 13 Wis. 466; Doreston v. Krieg, 66 Wis. 604; Mark v. Murphy, 76 Ind. 534; Young v. Stoutz, 74 Ala. 574; Close v. Hunt, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 254; Scales v. Griffin, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 54; Walker v. Hauss-Higo, I Cal. 183; Crowell v. Gilmore, 13 Cal. 54; Preston v. Sonora Lodge, 39 Cal. 116; Ferguson v. Miller, 6 Cal. 402; Williams v. Santa Clara Min. Co., 66 Cal. 193, 194; Root v. Bryant, 57 Cal. 48; Prow v. Rose, 4 Cal. 174; Thomas & Co. v. Mowers, 27 Kan, 265; Newark etc. Co. v. Morison, 3 N. J. Eq. 133; Knox v. Starks, 4 Minn. 20; Willim 7. Bernheimer, 5 Minn. 288; Olympic Theatre, 2 Browne (Pa.) 275; Mitchell v. Evans, 2 Browne (Pa.) 329; Vandevender's Case, 2 Browne (Pa.) 304; Leib v. Bean, 1 Ash. (Pa.) 207; Cornelius v. Uher, 2 Browne (Pa.) 229; Reading v. Hopson, 90 Pa. St. 494; Denmead v. Bank of Baltimore, 9 Md. 179; Pride v. Viles, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 125; Denison v. Shuler, 47 Mich. 598; s. c., 41 Am. Rep. 734; Troth v. Hunt, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 580; West v. Klotz, 37 Ohio St. 420; North etc. Church v. Jevne, 32 Ill. 214; Hoover Z'. Wheeler, 23 Miss. 314; Ettridge v. Bossett, 136 Mass. 314; Thomas' Estate, 76 Pa. St. 30; Lunt v. Stephens, 75 Ill. 507; Wing v. Carr, 86 Ill 347; Dunwell v. Bidwell, 8 Minn. 34: Otley v. Haveland, 36 Miss. 19; Hall. Mullariphy Planing Mill Co., 16 Mo. App. 454; Inverarity v. Stowell, 10 Oregon 261; Haenssler v. Thomas, 4 Mo. App. 463; Rees v. Ludington, 13 Wis. 276; Neilson v. Iowa etc. R. Co., 44 Iowa 71; Hinckley & Egery Iron Co. v. James, 51 Vt. 240; Tommey v. Spartanburg etc. R. Co., 7 Fed. Rep. 429; Jean v. Wilson, 38 Md. 288; Taylor v. Labar, 25 N. J. Ev. 222; McCree v. Campion, 5 Phila. (Pa.) 9. In Mississippi, the lien of the mechanic is subordinate to a prior encumbrance, so far as respects the land but is good against the building. McAllister v. Clopton, 51 Miss. 257. 2. Page v. Bettes, 17 Mo. App. 366. A contract for the sale of land was |