clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 210   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

210 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
for work and labor and fo.r materials furnished must be in sub-
ordination to prior incumbrances. Subject to such incum-
brances, the mechanic and materiel-men have liens on the
building, and on the ground covered by the building, by the
1st and 2d sections of the original Act. The 4th section of
the Supplement passed in 1845, ch. 176, makes every machine
thereafter to be erected, constructed, or repaired in the city
of Baltimore subject to the lien, in like manner aa buildings
are made subject under the provisions of the original Act and
the supplement.
It has been urged, that as the mechanic who erects or does
work on a building has a lien not only on the building, but
also on the ground occupied by the building, whilst the lien of
the machinist is confined to the machine, the Courts should in
the administration of the law incline to preserve the security
of the latter, by protecting the machine, from the operation of
the claims of other parties.
It will be found, however, upon reading the 4th section of
the Act referred to, that the lien is, in like manner as buildings
are, made subject under the provisions of the supplementary
and the original Act, and by both the lien of the mechanic, in
express terms is postponed to prior incumbrances.
If, therefore, the machinist puts up or repairs a machine,
which from the nature of its annexation to the building be-
comes a part of it, and the building itself is subject to a mort-
gage, the lien of the machinist must yield to the claim of the
mortgagee, and can only be asserted in subordination to it.
And as, by the former opinion of this Court, it was deemed
clear upon authority, that with respect to that part of the
machinery furnished by the Messrs. Denmead which consti-
tuted the motive power, it was to be regarded as so affixed to
the building as to be a part of it, the conclusion follows, that
the lien of the machinist must give way to that of the mort-
gagee, unless upon further consideration effect should be
given to the judgments obtained by the Messrs Denmead in
1849, beyond what it was supposed they were entitled to upon
the former argument.

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 210   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives