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.2 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. 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, § II, 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 who intervenes in the action, of his right to have an adjudication of his claim. 1871, Elliott v. Ivers, 6 Nev. 287. A void notice cannot be made effective as a lien on some specific portion of a lot by averment that the notice was intended to apply to such specific part. Irwin v. Crawfordsville, 72 Ind. 111. 1. Beals v. Congregation B'nai Jeshurun, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 654. 2. Wehr v. Shryock, 55 Md. 334. The court proceeded to hear and de.termine the case without proof that notice had been given to other lien claimants as provided by statute. Held, that as there was no showing made that there were any other lien claimants, the defendant could not have been prejudiced and is not entitled to a new trial. Loukey v. Wells, 16 Nev. 271. In Texas, in order to enable one to avail himself of the benefits of the statute regulating mechanics' liens (Laws of 15th Leg., 91), he must show by competent evidence that the bill of particulars was recorded and a copy thereof served on the party owing the debt. To fix the lien the provisions of the statute must be complied with in every essential particular. Lee v. O'Brien, 54 Tex. 635. 3. Ky. 70, 6; Neb. 1885, 62, 2 and 3; Miss. 1382; N. Y. 1875, 379, 5; 1862, 478, 3; 1865, 778, 4; 1854, 402, 4; 1864, 366; 1880, 143, 5; 486, 2; 1882, 410; N. J. Mechanics' Liens 11; Tex. 3165; Oreg. 1885, p. 13, § 5; Va. 115,4; W. Va. 1882, 64 3; Whipple v. Christian, 15 Hun (N. Y.) 321. 4. Ariz. 1885, 93, 5; Cal. 11187; Colo. 2140-1; Nev. 1875, 64, 5; Mich. 8378; Minn. 90, 6 and 7; Mo. 3176; Mont. G. L. 825, Mass. 191, 6; Ohio 3185, 3187; 3195; Ind. 1883, 115, 3; Ida. Civ. C. 820; N. M. 524; Nev. 1875, 64, 5; Wash. 1961; Wyom. 1877, p. 78, § 5; Utah C. Civ. P. 1062; S. Car. 2354, 1884, 505; Cox's Succession, 32 La. An. 1035. 5. See Stimp. Am. Stat., ġ 1968; Pairo v. Bethell, 75 Va. 825. In Kansas, a subcontractor desiring to perfect a mechanics' lien must file with the clerk of the district court a verified statement containing all the matters prescribed in § 3 of article 27 of the code of civil procedure, and this notwithstanding he may already have filed a statement containing all the matters prescribed by section two of said article. Newman v. Brown, 27 Kan. 117. In Arkansas, a mechanics' lien may be fixed before the debt is due, by filing an account in the clerk's office, and causing an abstract thereof to be entered in the judgment docket; and filing the account and the entry thereof within the prescribed time, are conditions precedent to the attaching of the lien; but such lien cannot be enforced by judgment and execution before the maturity of the debt. Hicks v. Branton, 21 Ark. 186. In Maine, the Mechanics' Lien Law of 1855, p. 327, requires that the attested account of materials furnished should be left in the hands of the owner, in all cases, by the workman or material-man, in order to bind the former. Stewart v. Christy, 15 La. An. 325. By Indiana Code, § 650, as amended (3 Stat. 336), the recorder of the county is required to keep a separate book in which to record all notices of intention to hold mechanics' liens. Wilson v. Hopkins, 51 Ind. 231. The statement of lien must be duly recorded; merely handing it to the recording officer after office hours with a request to record it is not sufficient. A mechanics' claim, regularly filed in proper form and time, and entered on the docket, is valid between the parties, though defectively indexed." 1. Statement of Claim.-The claim should set forth the name of the owner or reputed owner of the building, and also the name of the contractor, architect or builder, when the contract was made by the claimant with such contractor, architect or builder.3 The In Virginia, to perfect a lien the general contractor must, in conformity with Code 1873. ch. 115, § 3 to § 11 inclusive, within the prescribed time, file in the county or corporation court of the county or corporation in which is situated the property on which the lien is sought to be secured, and in the clerk's office of the chancery court of Richmond city, where the property is in said' city, a true account of the work done or materials furnished, sworn to by the claimant or his agent, with a statement attached, signifying his intention to claim the benefit of the lien, and setting forth a description of the property on which he claims a lien, which is to be recorded by the clerk. If such lien is given on the property of a railroad company in its entirety, it can only be secured by filing the account in the proper clerk's office of every county or corporation through which the road passes. Boston v. Chesapeake etc. R. Co., 76 Va. 180. In New York, the act N. Y. Laws 1854, ch. 402, extended by N. Y. Laws 1858, ch. 204, provided for the filing of a lien in certain cases in the office of a town clerk. Held, that where the property to which the lien attached was situated in a city where there was no town clerk, the filing of the lien with the county clerk was not sufficient. The failure of the legislature to provide for such a contingency was a casus omissus which could not be remedied by the courts. Cheney v. Wolf, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 188. The requirements of the act of 1878, as to liens on city school houses, that notice of claim should be filed with the head of the department having the work in charge and with the financial officer of the city, is complied with in New York city by filing the notice with the clerk of the board of education and with the comptroller. Bell v. Vanderbilt, 12 Daly (N. Y.) 467. 1. Jewett v. Darlington, 1 Wash. 601; Mars v. McKay, 14 Cal. 127. See Wood v. Simons, 110 Mass. 116. Giving the statement to the town clerk at the latter's house, is a sufficient filing, if the clerk notes thereon the time it was received, although he does not take it to his office and record it until after the prescribed time of filing has expired. Wood v. Simons 110 Mass. 116. A statement, filed in the registry of deeds, by a person claiming a mechanics' lien, and subscribed and sworn to by him, in accordance with the Pub. Stat., ch. 191, § 6, is not invalidated by the omission of the magistrate by whom the oath was administered to add the title of his office after his signature; and evidence is admissible to show that he held such office at the time he administered the oath. Jackman v. Gloucester, 143 Mass. 380. In California, the account must be "filed" in the recorder's office, and recorded by him; but it may be taken away after he has recorded it. Mars. v. McKay, 14 Cal. 127. In Texas, the statute does not require mechanics' liens to be recorded in a book by themselves. They are sufficiently recorded in a book in which mortgages are recorded. Quinn v. Logan, 67 Tex. 600. 2. Irish v. Harvey, 44 Pa. St. 76. 3. Weaver . Sheeler, 124 Pa. St. 473; Reindollar v. Flickinger, 59 Md. 469; Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Öregon 529; Malter v. Falcon Min. Co., 18 Nev. 209; Wood . Wrede, 46 Cal. 637; Phelps v. Maxwell's Creek G. Min. Co 49 Cal. 336; Hooper v. Flood, 54 Cal. 218; Sullivan v. Johns, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 366; Hicks v. Murray, 43 Cal. 515; Arata v. Tellurium G. & S. Min. Co., 65 Cal. 340; Hays v.Tryon, 2 Miles (Pa.) 208; McCay's Appeal, 37 Pa. St. 125; Knabb's Appeal, 10 Pa St. 186. See Davis v. Livingston, 29 Cal. 283, 288; Adkins v. Baker, 7 Ga. 56; Newell v. Haworth, 66 Pa. St. 363. Under Mass. Pub. St., ch. 191, § 6, the claim need not state that the building has been completed.' It is needless to follow the exact words of the statute; any equivalent words are sufficient.? 2. Certainty Required. In some States all that is required to validate a mechanics' lien, is such certainty as will enable those interested to discover during what period the materials were delivered, or the work done, so as to individuate the transaction.3 It is not essential to the validity of a mechanics' lien to specify the items of the account. It is sufficient to set forth a statement of the demand showing its nature and character and the amount statement must give the name of the owner of the property, if known. Held. that the name of the owner being unknown, the fact that statement averred that A was believed to be the owner did not affect the maintenance of the proceeding against B, who was the owner. McPhee v. Litchfield. 145 Mass. 565. A subcontractor filed a statement which omitted the name of the owner, and to which was attached a verification signed "B., per G., claimant." Two months after, the agent went to the clerk's office and changed the statement there filed, by inserting the name of the ou ner, and making the signature to the verification read: "G. W. G., agent for claimant;" the signature to the jurat was unchanged, and no new verification made at the time of this alteration. Held, the complete verified statement required by 3 was not filed. New man v. Brown & Co., 27 Kan. 117. If employment was by one member of a firm, statement of his name only in filing claim will not vitiate the lien. McDonaldson v. Backus, 45 Cal. 262. Statement that a certain person caused the building to be constructed is not statement of the name of the owner or reputed owner. Hooper v. Flood, 54 Cal. 218. Naming a wrong person as contractor is a fatal error. Davis v. Stratton, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 289; Hershey v. Odd Fellows' Hall, 2 T. & H. Pr. 431; Hill v. Bramall, 1 Miles (Pa.) 352, was decided prior to the act 28 April 1840, by which the law was changed. In Iowa, under section 1851 of the Revision, as amended by chapter III, of the laws of 1862, it was not necessary, in a statement for a mechanics' lien, to set forth the name of the owner of the property at the time the lien was filed, accordingly it was held that, where the owner who had incurred the indebtedness died before the filing of the lien, it was sufficient, as against the heirs, to file the lien against the estate of the deceased owner. Welch v. McGrath, 59 Iowa 519. In Nebraska, an affidavit for a mechanics' lien need not state specifically that the person with whom the contract was made or for whom the labor was performed is the owner of the property, where such fact is shown by the other statements. Hays v. Mercier, 22 Neb. 656. In New Jersey, the lien claim or declaration need not state the owner's legal estate; the name of the owner of the land or estate is sufficient. Cornell v. Matthews, 27 N. J. L. 522. Where work is done for A, who afterwards sells the premises to B, and subsequently a claim for a mechanics' lien is filed, which describes B as the owner, the statute requirement as to giving the name of the owner is thereby sufficiently complied with. Edwards v. Derrickson, 27 N. J. L. 29. 1. Harmon v. Ashmead, (8 Cal. 321. 2. Taylor v. Wittkamp, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 31; Blackman v. Marsicano, 61 Cal. 638; Hooper v. Flood, 54 Cal. 218, 221; Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 568. The claim of lien in this case, in stating the terms, time given and conditions of the contract, used the words "cash upon demand, in gold coin of the United States." Held, a substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute. Blackman v. Marsicano, 61 Cal. 638. 3. Rush v. Able, 90 Pa. St. 153; Cole v. Uhl, 46 Conn. 296, 299; Driesbach v. Keller, 2 Pa. St. 77; Holland v. Garland, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 544; Kennedy v. House, 41 Pa. St. 39, McClintock v. Rush, 63 Pa. St. 203. A claim for work done, between two certain dates, within six months, is sufficiently certain. Bayer v. Reeside, 14 Pa. St. 167; Robinson v. Robinson, Dist. Court., Phila. (Pa.) 13 May, 1848, M. S.; McIntyre v. Johnson, Dist. due or owing thereon.1 But in other States the statutes require an itemized or detailed statement of the transaction to which the account relates.2 The statement must contain not only the sum due, but also the nature or kind of the work done, and the Court, Phila. (Pa.) 23rd September, 1848, MS. Compare Jersey Co. v. Davison, 29 N. J. L. 415. 1. Ainslie v. Kohn, 16 Oregon 363; Anderson v. Seamans, 49 Ark. 475; Hotaling v. Cronise, 2 Cal. 60; Heston v. Martin, 11 Cal. 41; Brenan v. Swasey, 16 Cal. 140, 141; Selden v. Weeks, 17 Cal. 129; Preston v. Sonora Lodge, 39 Cal. 116; Smith v. Wells, 16 Nev. 271; Davis v. Hines, 6 Ohio St. 473; Whittier v. Blakely, 13 Oreg. 546; McCoy v. Quick, 30 Wis. 521; Thomas v. Huesman, 10 Ohio (N. S.) 152; Gilman v. Gard, 29 Ind. 291; Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 568; Knabb's Appeal, 10 Pa. St. 186; Bank of Charleston v. Curtiss, 18 Conn. 342; s. c., 46 Am. Dec. 325; Bennett v. Gray (Ga.), 9 S. E. Rep. 469. It is a sufficient compliance with the requirement of the statute, in the statement of a lien claim, filed in the town clerk's office, if it give the amount due for which the lien is claimed, without stating the items making up such amount. Ricker v. Joy, 72 Me. 106. Certificate of mechanics' lien for work done on several buildings under an entire contract need not specify the amount of work done and remaining unpaid upon each building separately. Bank of Charleston v. Curtiss, 18 Conn. 342; s. c., 46 Am. Dec. 325. In Pennsylvania, a subcontractor may claim a lien under a contract, and a statement of the aggregate price of work and materials furnished is sufficient, the dates within which they were furnished also being set out. Howell v. Campbell, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 388; Knowlan v. Ellis, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 396. Young v. Liman, 9 Barr 449, in which it was ruled, that, under a special contract, the claim filed need not set out the nature and kind of the work done, nor the kind and amount of the materials furnished, does not apply to a subcontractor. Russel v. Bell, 44 Pa. St. 47. In Texas, a note executed and recorded after the performance of work for which it was claimed to have been given, stating that the consideration was "for tin work and material furnished by them on my (the maker's) house and homestead in the city of Waco," does not show such facts as were necessary to fix a mechanics' lien under the act of 1871. Reese v. Corlew, 60 Tex. 70. Including Land in Excess of Statutory Quantity.-Under the mechanics' lien law (Gen. Stat. 1878, ch. 90), when the building on which the lien is claimed is situate upon a tract of land containing a greater area than that upon which a lien is given, it is not necessary that the claimant should in his affidavit and claim of lien carve out and describe the statutory amount. It is sufficient if he describe the building, and the entire tract upon which it stands. The court, if necessary, can determine and fix the shape in which the statutory amount subject to the lien shall be carved out of the entire tract. North Star Iron Works Co. v. Strong, 33 Minn. 1; 33 Minn. 384; Barber v. Reynolds, 44 Cal. 519, 520; Shattuck v. Beardsley, 46 Conn. 386, 388; Edwards v. Derrickson, 28 N. J. L. 29; Thomas v. Huesman, 10 Ohio St. 152. Including Materials Not Secured by Lien.-The including in a statement filed under Stat. 1855, ch. 431, §§ 2, 3, claims for materials and for labor of journeymen, which are not secured by the lien, will not defeat the lien for the mechanic's own labor. Parker v. Bill, 7 Gray (Mass.) 429. 2. Graves v. Pierce, 53 Mo. 423; Rude v. Mitchell, 97 Mo. 365; Lord v. Church, 6 Luz. L. Reg. (Pa.) 119; Shackleford v. Beck, So Va. 573; McWilliams v. Allen, 45 Mo. 573; Lee v. Burke, 66 Pa. St. 336; Carson v. White, 6 Gill 17; Gray v. Dick. 97 Pa. St. 142: Wharton v. Douglas, 92 Pa. St. 66; Hayden v. Wulfing, 19 Mo. App. 353; Thomas v. Huesman, 10 Ohio St. 152; Burrough v. White, 18 Mo. App. 229; Wetmore's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 276; Roose v. Billingsley & N. C. Co., 74 Iowa 51; Gordon Hardware Co. v. San Francisco etc. R. Co. (Cal.), 22 Pac. Rep. 406. An account in the following form: "Kearney, Nebraska, Feb. 28th, 1890. "N. D. Haley, Esq., "To R. L. Downing, Dr. Cr. "1879, Sept. 30, to Nov. 13, "To lumber for house. $63 77 "By work $3.00" Held, To be a sufficient itemization of |