Where the and that is subject to a mechanics' lien is sold, the money thus received becomes a trust fund in equity liable to discharge the lien.1 But money due from an insurance company to the owners of a homestead, for loss sustained by fire in the destruction of the home building, is not subject to garnishment by one who held an unsatisfied mechanics' lien on the building before its destruction.2 1. Legal and Equitable Estates.--An equitable3 as well as a legal estate is subject to a mechanics' lien, and will follow the title into whosoever hands it may pass.5 A builder has no lien upon a house for labor performed and materials furnished under a contract with a holder of the mere legal title, whom the equitable owner, in the open, visible, and exclusive possession, employs to build it, and whom he supplies with means of doing it. So a lien cannot be acquired for work done or material furnished under a contract with an equitable owner, as against one holding the legal title, unless the building is constructed by permission of the latter. But if the equitable owner permits the building to be erected and, before lien filed, by the performance of a contract of purchase, becomes the legal Lyon v. McGuffey, 4 Pa. St. 126; s. c., 45 Am. Dec. 675. 1. Ellett v. Tyler, 41 Ill. 449; Gaty v. Casey, 15 Ill. 189; Wells v. Canton Co., 3 Md. 234. 2. Cameron v. Fay, 55 Tex. 58; Gaylon v. Ketchen, 85 Tenn. 55. 3. Paulsen v. Manske, 126 Ill. 72; Clark & Co. v. Parker. 58 Iowa 509; Hooker v. McGlone, 42 Conn. 95, 101; Botsford v. New Haven etc. R. Co., 41 Conn. 454; Seitz v. Union Pac. R. Co., 16 Kan. 133; Keller v. Denmead, 68 Pa. St. 449; Lyon v. McGuffey, 4 Pa. St. 126; Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 342; Belmont v. Smith, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 675; Rollins v. Cross, 45 N. Y. 766; Wagar v. Briscoe, 38 Mich. 587; Weaver v. Sheeler, 118 Pa. 634; Crowell v. Gilmore, 13 Cal. 54; Carpenter v. Leonard, 17 Minn. 342. The lien of mechanics for labor performed and materials furnished towards the erection or repair of a building attaches, even though the employer has but an equitable interest in the land and building. Crowell v. Gilmore, 13 Cal. 54 A mechanics' lien attaches to equitable interest under an agreement for the purchase of land. Goldheim v. Clark, 68 Ind. 498. Where materials are furnished for a building under a contract with the holder of the equitable title to land, a mechanics' lien attaches to the equitable interest only. Weaver v. Sheeler, 118 Pa. 634. A mechanic who has erected a building on the ground of another, under an agreement with the owner to convey the same on ground rent, becomes the equitable owner of the building, and is within the provisions of the act of assembly of Pennsylvania securing to mechanics and others the value of materials furnished for the erection of houses, etc. Carson v. Boudinot, 2 Wash. 33. 4. Wagar v. Biscoe, 38 Mich. 587; Stevens v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 476; Anderson v. Dillaye, 47 N. Y. 676; Peabody v. Eastern Methodist Society, 5 Allen (Mass.) 540; Redman v. Williamson, 2 Iowa 488. But see Ernst v. Reed, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 367. 5. Clark & Co. v. Parker, 58 Iowa 509; Lyon v. McGuffey, 4 Pa. St. 126; Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 342; Rollins v. Cross, 45 N. Y. 767, 768; Belmont v. Smith, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 675; Montaudon v. Deas, 14 Ala. 33; Chambers v. Benoist, 25 Mo. App. 520. 6. Marston v. Stickney, 60 N. H. 112. 7. Rollins v. Cross, 45 N Y. 766. Where a person holds an equitable estate in certain real estate and not holding the legal estate makes improvements on such estate and afterwards a mechanics' lien is filed to secure payment for labor and materials furnished in making such improvements, the lien owner, the conveyance will be held to relate to the time when the contract of purchase was made, and such owner to be within the statute.1 Where the materials were furnished for the owner of an equitable estate only and a claim is filed against the owner of the legal title by subsequent purchase, it cannot be sustained without evidence that the defendant owns also the interest of the person for whom the building was erected.2 The acquisition of the legal title by one for whom materials are furnished unites in him the ownership of the house and lot, and the lien rests upon his interest in both, and he cannot defeat it by setting up title in a third person previous to that date; the lien is continuing and binds the whole estate or interest of the debtor in the building and lot on which it stands.3 2. Life Estates.Acquired either by purchase or by operation of law are subject to mechanics' liens, unless they are excepted by express enactment.4 3. Estates of Husband and Wife.--The contract of a husband cannot create a mechanics' lien upon the real estate of his wife.5 A married woman may make such contracts for the improvement of her real estate with a mechanic, material-man or builder, as will authorize him to avail himself of the law on the subject of liens, and thus acquire and enforce liens upon such property. It is not necessary to the validity of such a lien, that she should intend to create a charge thereon, but the law itself gives such operates upon the equitable estate only and will not reach the legal estate or affect the rights of the party holding the legal title. Seitz v. Union Pa. R. Co., 16 Kan. 133. 1. Rollins v. Cross, 45 N. Y. 766. 2. Weaver v. Sheeler, 118 Pa. St. 634. 3. Coleman v. Goodnow, 36 Minn. 9. 4. Gilman v. Disbrow, 45 Conn. 563; Paulsen 7. Manske, 126 Ill. 72. At the time when a husband and wife made a contract with a mechanic to furnish labor and materials for the erection of a building on the wife's land they had not had a child born alive; but after the mechanic filed a petition that the land might be sold for breach of the contract pursuant to the Rev. Stat., ch. 117, they had a child born alive. Held, that the mechanics' lien extended to the husband's estate in the land as tenant by the curtesy initiate. Kirby 7. Tead, 13 Met. (Mass.) 149. In Illinois, the statute does not give a mechanics' lien in favor of one furnishing labor and materials under contract with a tenant for lite. Osgood v. Pacey, 23 Ill. App. 116. 5. Wendt v. Martin, 89 Ill. 139; Johnson v. Tutewiler, 35 Ind. 353; Spinning v. Blackbourn, 13 Ohio St. 131; Flannery v. Rohrmayer, 46 Conn. 558; Lauer v. Bandow, 43 Wis. 556; Kansas City Planing Mill Co. v. Brundage, 25 Mo. App. 268; Ziegler v. Galvin, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 44; Fetter v. Wilson, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 90; Cameron 7. McCullough, 11 R. I. 173: Bliss v. Patten, 5 R. I. 376, 380; Berry v. Weisse, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 662; Finley's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 453; Getty v. Tramel, 67 Iowa 288; Little v. Vredenburgh, 16 Ill. App. 189; Geary v. Hennessy, 9 Ill. App. 17; Dearie v. Martin, 78 Pa. St, 55; Littlejohn v. Millirons, 7 Ind. 125; Smith v. Gill, 37 Minn. 455; Greenleaf v. Beebe, 80 Ill. 520; Taylor 7. Gilsdorff, 74 Ill. 354; Lyon v. Ozee, 66 Tex. 95; Wheaton v. Trimble, 145 Mass. 345; Hauptman v. Catlin, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 729. Compare Washburn v. Burns, 34 N. J. L. 18. One who erects a building on the land of a married woman under a contract entered into by her husband in his own name has no personal claim against her or lien on the property. Flannery v. lien when the work has been done, or the materials furnished, under a contract with her, express or implied. The lien attaches to a wife's property for labor performed at the husband's request and with her knowledge.2 And where she has no knowledge of Rohrmayer, 46 Conn. 560; Spinning v. Blackburn, 13 Ohio St. 131; Wendt v. Martin, So Ill. 139; Lauer v. Bandow, 43 Wis. 556; Zeigler v. Galvin, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 44; Kansas City Planing Mill Co. v. Brundage, 25 Mo. App. 268. If the work is done and materials furnished at a husband's request for buildings erected on the real estate of his wife, the latter is not liable although she may have subsequently signed a promissory note for such work and materials. Johnson v. Tutewiler, 35 Ind. 353 1. Vail v. Meyer, 71 Ind. 160; Kantrowitz v. Prather, 31 Ind. 92; Lindley v. Cross, 31 Ind. 106; Appeal of The Germania Savings Bank, 95 Pa. St. 329; Wheaton v. Trimble, 145 Mass. 345; Schmidt v. Joseph, 65 Ala. 475; Machir v. Burroughs, 14 Ohio St. 519; Charleston Lumber etc. Co. v. Brockmyer, 18 W. Va. 586, 587; Wright v. Blackwood & Frazier, 57 Tex. 644; Carpenter v. Leonard, 5 Minn. 155; Bliss v. Patten, 5 R. I. 376; Hauptman 7. Catlin, 20 N. Y. 247; Kuhns v. Turney, 87 Pa. St. 497; Allen v. Graham, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 176; Woodburn v. Gifford, 66 Ill. 285; Tuttle v. Howe, 14 Minn. 145; Dearie v. Martin, 78 Pa. St. 55; Woodward v. Wilson, 68 Pa. St. 208; Greenleaf v. Beebe, So Ill. 520; Flannery v. Rohrmayer, 46 Conn. 558; Shilling v. Templeton, 66 Ind. 585, 587; Littlejohn v. Millirons, 7 Ind. 125; Johnson . Tutewiler, 35 Ind. 353; Edwards v. Edwards, 24 Ohio St. 402; Husted v. Mathes, 77 N. Y. 388. Ex parte Schmidt, 52 Ala. 256; Finley's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 453; Barto's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 386; Miller v. Hollingsworth, 33 Iowa 224. But see Gray v. Pope, 35 Miss. 116; Rogers v. Phillips, 8 Ark. 366; s. c., 47 Am. Dec. 727; Sexton v. Alberti, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 452; Johnson v. Parker, 27 N. J. L. 239; Sibley v. Casey, 6 Mo. 164; ONeil v. Percival, 20 Fla. 937; S. C., 51 Am. Rep. 934; Kirby v. Tead, 13 Metc. (Mass.) 149; Tetter v. Wilson, 12 B. Mon.(Ky.) 90, 91; Robinson v. Huffman. 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) So; Webster v. Metropolitan Wash. Machine Co., 29 Ind 453; Selph v. Howland, 23 Miss. 264. A mechanic under written contracwith husband and wife erected a buildt ing on land, the wife's general estate, and filed his bill to enforce his lien. Held, her contract for building the house was void, and her promise to pay for it equally a nullity, and that no lien could arise from these acts by which her property could be in any way affected. Contracts which a party has no power to make cannot be the base of legal obligation. The liability of the land to the lien would seem to be met by the fact, that she could only dispose of it by conveyance as required be law. While a lien is not a right to land, nor interest in land, but a charge fixed upon it by law or contract, still it would seem an incongruity to hold that the wife could indirectly contract for a result, by which her land might be conveyed or disposed of against her will when she could not have done so directly except under prescribed forms. Sexton v. Alberti, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 452. Where a grantor in a deed, which was placed in a trunk by him to be taken possession of by his wife only in the event of his death in the army, twenty years after such deposit had $300 in money, for which plaintiff proposed to build a new dwelling, but plaintiff subsequently informed him that it could not be completed for that sum, and grantor refused to permit his land to be liable for any excess, the plaintiff proposing to look to the wife for the excess, a mechanics' lien for the building could not be enforced against the realty. Price v. Hudson, 25 Ill. 284. V. 2. North v. La Flesh, 73 Wis. 520; Heath 7. Salles, 73 Wis. 217; Rand v. Parker, 73 Iowa 396; Wheaton Trimble, 145 Mass. 345; Einstein v. Jamison, 95 Pa. St. 403; Dearie v. Martin, 78 Pa. St. 55. But see Nelson v. Cover, 47 Iowa 250; Gilman v. Disbrow, 45 Conn. 563; Willard v. Magoon, 30 Mich. 273; Babbitt v. Condon. 27 N. J. L. 154; Fitch v. Baker, 23 Conn. 563. Compare Smith v. Gill, 37 Minn, 455. A statute providing that "every person including all cestuis qui trust for whose immediate use, enjoyment or benefit, any building, erection or im provement shall be made, shall be included by the words, 'owner or proprietor thereof,' under this chapter, not the work done a recovery may be had against the husband.1 But if a married woman holds out to the world that her husband owns her property or allows him so to act as to induce such belief or that he has power to bind her, others dealing with him on the faith of its truth will be protected against her.2 So a mechanics' lien for material furnished for improvements upon a wife's property, under a contract with the husband, cannot be defeated by any contract or agreement between the husband and wife, unknown to the contractor.3 excepting married women as to their separate property," may be enforced against property held by a married woman as an equitable separate estate, the title being in a trustee for her use and benefit, when it is shown that the contract was made by her husband, with her knowledge, and without dissent or disapproval on her part, and that she has enjoyed the use and benefit of the work or materials. Schmidt v. Joseph, 65 Ala. 475. If a contract for the erection of a building is made by the husband, and the same is erected on the real estate belonging to the wife, in her separate right, with her full knowledge, approbation and consent, and she does not disclose her interest, and knowing what is being done, takes no steps to prevent it, she will be estopped from setting up her right as a defence to a mechanics' lien. Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 Ill. 18. A mechanics' lien for work done and materials furnished, may be enforced against the separate estate of a married woman when such married woman had personal knowledge of such work, etc., and to some extent gave personal directions respecting it although her husband was the principal manager. Collins v. Megraw, 47 Mo. 495. When the husband, on his own responsibility, contracts for the improve ment of his wife's estate, mere silence or failure on her part to dissent from the contract cannot be construed as an intention to bind her estate in payment. Copeland v. Kehoe, 67 Ala. 594. Where the husband contracts in writing, in his own name, for the construction of a house upon his wife's land, that the wife knew of the erection and gave directions as to the construction of some closets does not show that the husband acted as her agent, nor that she adopted the contract and made it herown. Barker.v. Berry, 8 Mo. App.446. 1. Meyer v. Broadwell, 83 Mo. 571; Flannery v. Rohrmayer, 46 Conn. 558; Woodward v. Wilson, 68 Pa. St. 208; Lauer v. Bandow, 43 Wis. 556; Hellwig v. Blumenberg, 7 N. Y. Supp. 746. A husband having a life estate in a house and land connected therewith of which his wife owned the fee, contracted with-the petitioners, who were builders, to construct two small buildings and two hundred feet of fence on the land. They erected the buildings and fence with the knowledge and consent of the wife, who with her husband lived in the house, but with no contract with or request from her, and the husband had no authority and did not assume to act as her agent in the matter. Held, that the petitioners were entitled to a lien only upon the life estate of the husband. Gilman v. Disbrow, 45 Conn. 563. 2. Anderson v. Armstead, 69 Ill. 453; McNichols v. Kettner, 22 Ill. App. 493. A wife was the owner of a wagon, which she allowed her husband to use in his business. The wagon needing repairs, the husband took it to a wheelwright to be repaired. The wheelright made the repairs upon the wagon, thinking it belonged to the husband, and charged the bill for repairs to the husband. Held, in trover by the wife, that the wheelwright had a lien on the wagon, for his reasonable charges for the repairs. White v. Smith, 44 N. J. L. 105; s. c., 43 Am. Rep. 347. A man bought land to build a house on, taking the deed in his wife's name. He then fraudulently induced the petitioners to build the house by telling them that he owned the land absolutely. The wife knew of the building contract, and assented to it, knowing her husband to be irresponsible; and he acted as her authorized agent in making the contract. Held, that the petitioners were entitled to claim a mechanics' lien against both. Hitchcock v. Kiely, 41 Conn. 611, 612. 3. Bethell v. Cchiago Lumber Co., 39 Kan. 230. (a) Consent to Charge with Lien.-A mechanics' lien does not attach to the estate of a married woman for any improvement thereon made, unless such improvement has been contracted for by her jointly with her husband, or has been contracted for by the husband, with the wife's consent and her consent in some of the States must be in writing.1 (b) Husband Acting as Wife's Agent.-One who erects a building on the land of a married woman, under a contract entered into by her husband who acted as her agent, has a lien on the property.2 1. Cameron v. McCullough, 11 R. I. 173; Johnson v. Parker, 27 N. J. L. 239; Bliss v. Patten, 5 R. I. 376, 380; Fetter v. Wilson, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 90, 91; Berry v. Weisse, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 662; Finley's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 453; Getty v. Tramel, 67 Iowa 288; Little v. Vredenburgh, 16 Ill. App. 189; Geary Hennessy, 9 Ill. App. 17; Dearie v. Martin, 78 Pa. St. 55; Littlejohn v. Millirons, 7 Ind. 125; North v. La Flesh, 73 Wis. 520. Compare Lloyd 2. Hibbs, 81 Pa. St. 306; Schriffer v. Saum, 81 Pa. St. 385. v. Where a mechanics' lien law declares that the "knowledge and consent of the owner," a married woman, to the furnishing of material shall be sufficient to show that her husband acted as her agent, her consent must be shown as well as her knowledge. Smith v. Gill, 37 Minn. 455. A mechanics' lien, for work done and materials furnished, may be enforced against the separate estate of a married woman, when such married woman had personal knowledge of such work, etc., and, to some extent, gave personal directions respecting it, although her husband was the principal manager. Collins v. Megraw, 47 Mo. 495. In New Jersey, real estate, held in fee by husband and wife, is, under the laws of New Jersey, subject to a mechanics' lien for buildings erected thereon under an agreement with the husband alone. Washburn v. Burns, 34 N. J. L. 18. In Illinois, a mechanics' lien can be created, notwithstanding the owner of the property is a married woman, if the labor and materials are furnished upon her request, or upon her husband's request, with her consent and approval. Greenleaf v. Beebe, So Ill. 520; Taylor v. Gilsdorff, 74 Ill. 354. In Texas, the consent of the wife, necessary to create a lien on the homestead for work and material used in im provements must precede the purchase of the material. Lyon v. Ozee, 66 Tex. 95. Where a husband purchases materials which are used by him in repairing a house owned by his wife, and in so doing does not purchase for her, or profess to act in her behalf, but buys on his own account, and solely on his own credit, giving his note for the price, no lien will be created upon the premises of the wife. Wendt v. Martin, 89 Ill. 139. See Corning v. Fowler, 24 Iowa 584; Nelson v. Cover, 47 Iowa 250. A mechanics' lien law, provided that when materials are furnished or work done in erecting a building upon land belonging to a married woman, under a contract with her husband, the lien shall not attach unless notice thereof be given to such married woman, in writing, etc. The law also provided that when a contract for furnishing materials, etc., is made with any person other than the owner of the land or his agent, the lien shall not attach unless notice in writing be given to the owner or his agent, etc. Held, that the provision requiring personal notice to the married woman applies only where the husband erects the building in his character as husband, and in the exercise of his own authority as such, and does not apply to where the husband acts as the agent of his wife and by her authority. In such a case, notice to the husband is sufficient, he being the agent of the owner. Jarden v. Pumphrey, 36 Md. 361. 2. Lauer v. Bandow, 43 Wis. 556; Gilman v. Disbrow, 45 Conn. 563; Fetter v. Wilson, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 90; Kansas City Plan. Mill Co. v. Brundage, 25 Mo. App. 268; Wheaton v. Trimble, 145 Mass. 345; Geary v. Hennessy, 9 Ill. App. 17. A husband left his wife, and going to a distant State, remained absent two years, when she executed a power of at |