ART. 63] MECHANICS' LIEN. 1455

The sale of a house and lot while the building is in process of erection,
can not affect the right to a lien of a mechanic previously employed, and
who continues to be employed thereafter. Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 183.

For a case holding that articles were furnished under the authority of
the owner, and hence that the lien could be enforced, see Weber v.
Weatherby, 34 Md. 661. And see Real Estate Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 527.

Release of certain houses.

Where materials are furnished, for two houses, and the material man
releases his Hen as to one of them, he can not claim a Hen against the other
for the materials furnished for the house so released. Wilson v. Wilson, 51
Md. 160; Nickel v. Blanch, 67 Md. 460.

Where there is an entire contract to furnish materials for certain houses,
and the claimant releases some of the houses from his Hen, the burden is
on the parties attacking the Hen to show which materials went into the
houses released, and for which therefore there should be no lien. Waiver
of liens. Maryland Brick Co. v. Dunkerly, 85 Md. 212.

Act 1898, ch. 502.

The act of 1898, ch. 502, repealed as to Baltimore city, all sections of
article 63 providing for a Hen for materials. That act wiped out all liens
which at the time of its passage had not been commenced, prosecuted and
concluded. The right to a mechanics' lien for materials, is not a vested
right, and hence the act of 1898, ch. 502, is constitutional. Wilson v. Simon,
91 Md. 4.

The purpose of the act of 1898, ch. 502, was to eliminate from the Hen
law as respects Baltimore city, all Hens for materials. In Baltimore city,
where an entire contract embraces both labor and materials, there can be
no lien even for the labor. Models furnished by a marble cutter as a means
of guiding and fashioning the work, do not constitute materials, and hence
such contract is for labor only. A contract with a marble cutter, held to be
for labor and not for materials. The words "on or about" as used in the
act of 1898, ch. 502, section 1, construed- Evans Co. v. International Trust
Co., 101 Md. 213.

Generally.

Where an entire contract is entered into for work on a row of houses, the
lien extends to all the houses, and it makes no difference as to how much
material went into any one house. The claimant need not show that
the materials actually went into the buildings, provided they were con-
tracted for and delivered. Part performance. The lien will be enforced
notwithstanding errors in the account—the auditor can correct them. Fulton
v. Parlett, 104 Md. 69; Maryland Brick Co. v. Dunkerly, 85 Md. 212; Mary-
land Brick Co. v. Spllman, 76 Md. 341; Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 160. And
see Gunther v. Bennett, 72 Md. 386; Watts v. Whittlngton, 48 Md. 357;
Greenway v. Turner. 4 Md. 305.

Proceedings for the enforcement of mechanics' Hens, are exclusively in
rem—effect thereof. The court need not determine whether the party named
as owner In the claim as filed, is the real owner. Shryock v. Hensel, 95 Md.
026. And see Kelly v. Gilbert. 78 Md. 438; Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 183. Of.
McKim v. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 212.

The assignee of a mechanics' lieu claim, takes it subject to the equities
enforceable against it in the hands of the assignor. Waiver of mechanics'
lien. Estoppel. Goldman v. Brinton, 90 Md. 264.

As to waiver of mechanics' liens, see also, Maryland Brick Co. v. Dunkerly,
85 Md. 212; Sodini v. Winter, 32 Md. 134.

The claimant is entitled to interest from the time his claim is filed.
Hensel v. Johnson, 94 Md. 737; German, etc., Church v. Heise, 44 Md. 472.

A lien claimant has an insurable interest in a building prior to the filing
of his claim under section 23. Franklin Co. v. Coates, 14 Md. 296; Sodini v.
Winter, 32 Md. 133.

Nature and extent of a mechanics' Hen. Evans Co. v. International Trust
Co., 101 Md. 218; Wilson v. Simon, 91 Md. 6; Willison v. Douglas, 66 Md. 102 ;
Reindollar v. Flickinger, 59 Md. 471; McLaughlin v. Keinhart, 54 Md. 76;