ART. 63] NOTICE TO OWNER. 1459

the furnishing of different parcels of materials or the doing of different
portions of the work—when contracts are entire and when separate and
distinct. The sufficiency of notices and the time and manner of the service
thereof, passed on. Hensel v. Johnson, 94 Md. 732; German, etc., Church
v. Heise, 44 Md. 469; Hill v. Kaufman, 98 Md. 249.

A notice which fails to state the nature and kind of materials furnished,
or the amount claimed, and makes no reference to a claim filed, is not
sufficient. Thomas v. Barber. 10 Md. 389.

Notice held sufficiently explicit. That it is addressed to others besides
the owner, is immaterial where the claim filed states who the owner or
reputed owner is. Hensel v. Johnson, 94 Md. 732.

The intention of this section is that the notice shall be served personally
on the owner whenever that can be done. Hill v. Kaufman, 98 Md. 251.

A notice signed by a duly authorized attorney, is sufficient. Treusch v.
Shryock, 51 Md. 171.

Notice held to have been served upon the owner in due time after the
completion of the building. Herman v. Mertens, 87 Md. 726.

A notice held sufficient as being in substantial compliance with this section.
This section compared with section 10. Fulton v. Parlett, 104 Md. 65. Cf.
Hess v. Poultney, 10 Md. 267.

Generally.

The notice required by this section is essential, and the fact that the
owner is one of the partners in the firm with whom the contract for
materials was made, does not dispense with such notice. Contracts held not
to dispense with the necessity of notice. Reindollar v. Flickinger, 59 Md.
473. See also. Wehr v. Shryock, 55 Md. 336.

Where builders are also the owners, the notice prescribed by this section
need not be given. Real Estate Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 524.

This section will be construed in connection with section 19, and a claim
which in designating the owner under section 19, used one of the terms
permitted thereby, is not defeated because the notice under this section uses
the alternative term. The object and policy of this section. Shryock v.
Hensel, 95 Md. 624.

Object of the notice to the owner. The material man's right to the lien is
not affected by whether the owner has money in his hands due the builder,
or whether the former has performed his contract with the latter. Treusch
v. Shryock, 51 Md. 171. And see German, etc., Church v. Heise, 44 Md. 473;
New England, etc., Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 11 Md. 90.

The obligation of complying with this section is imperative, and the inten-
tion is that the notice shall be served personally upon the owner whenever
that can be done. Place of residence of owner passed upon. Hill v. Kauf-
man, 98 Md. 251.

If after a contract is completed, goods are delivered by a material man
for the purpose of extending the time within which the notice may be
served on the owner, the lien is invalid. Greenway v. Turner, 4 Md. 304.
And see Heath v. Tyler, 44 Md. 317.

The notice is not amendable under section 41, after the expiration of the
sixty days. Kenly v. Sisters of Charity, 63 Md. 311.

While the lien may be enforced if this section is complied with, the law
raises no assumpsit as between the owner and the claimant. Kees v. Kerney,
5 Md. 421.

The notice required by this section, held to have been given. Wilson v.
Simon, 91 Md. 4; Hensel v. Johnson, 94 Md. 735.

This section held inapplicable because the contract was made with the
owner and not with the contractor. First Nat'1 Bank v. White, 114 Md. 615;
Rust v. Chisolm, 57 Md. 383; Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 174.

Cited but not construed in Blake v. Pitcher, 46 Md. 465; Pne v. Hetzell,
16 Md. 549; Shoop v. Powles. 13 Md. 309.

See notes to sections 10, 12, 16 and 23.

1904. art. 63, sec. 12. 1888, art. 63, sec. 12. 1860, art. 61, sec. 12.
1845, ch. 176, sec. 2.

12. If such notice can not be given on account of absence or other
causes, the claimant or his agent may, in the presence of a competent