1462 MECHANICS' LIEN. [ART. 63

1904, art. 63, sec. 18. 1888, art. 63, sec. 18. 1860, art. 61, sec. 18.
1838, ch. 205, sec. 3.

18. The clerks of the circuit courts for the several counties and the
superior court of Baltimore city shall each procure and keep a docket or
book to be called "The mechanics' lien docket," in which he shall record
all designations or descriptions of lots or pieces of ground and all claims
which may be filed by virtue of this article together with the day of fil-
ing the same and shall cause the names of the owner of the lot of ground
and of the contractor, architect or builder, if such be named, and of the
person claiming the lien under this law to be recorded therein.

Ibid. sec. 19. 1888, art. 63. sec. 19. 1860, art. 61. sec. 19.
1838, ch. 205, sec. 31.

19. Every such claim shall set forth: first, the name of the party
claimant and of the owner or reputed owner of the building, and also of
the contractor or architect, or builder, when the contract was made by
the claimant with such contractor, architect or builder; second, the
amount or sum claimed to be due and the nature or kind of work or the
kind and amount of materials furnished and the time when the mate-
rials were furnished or the work done; thirdly, the locality of the build-
ing and the number and size of the stories of the same, or such other
matters of description as may be necessary to identify the same.

How contract should be set out.

A lien claim which includes work and materials under two or more con-
tracts, should give the dates for each, and the general statement that the
work had been finished and the materials furnished within less than six
months, is not sufficient. Clark v. Boarman, 89 Md. 432.

Where the contract is to do certain work and to furnish certain materials
for a lump sum, the claim filed under this section need not do more than
set out the contract price, no amount having been fixed on the work or
materials separately. Gunther v. Bennett, 72 Md. 388. And see Pue v.
Hetzell, 16 Md. 549.

A Hen claim held insufficient, as not showing the nature and character of
the contract. Baker v. Winter, 15 Md. 9.

Designation of owner.

It is essential that the lien claim state the owner or reputed owner of the
building. Eeindollar v. Flickinger, 59 Md. 471; Wehr v. Shryock, 55 Md.

336.

Under this section, the claimant may use the designation of owner or
reputed owner as prudence suggests. Section 11 will be construed in connec-
tion with this section, and a claim which uses one designation hereunder,
can not be defeated because the other designation is used in the notice
required by section 11. A claimant is justified in naming as owner the
person appearing as such on the public records. If the designation as
owner or reputed owner is made in good faith, the Hen will not be lost
because it subsequently appears that some other person is the owner.
Shryock v. Hensel, 95 Md. 624.

Generally.

If this section is complied with, no bill of particulars can be demanded.
If it is not complied with and proceedings are taken by scire facias, the
proper practice is to move to quash the writ. Wilson v. Merryman, 48 Md,

337. See also, Bakers. Winter, 15 Md. 7.

The Hen will be enforced notwithstanding errors In the account—the
auditor can correct such errors. Maryland Brick Co. v. Spilman, 76 Md. 346.