1464 MECHANICS' LIEN. [ART. 63

This section does not give a lien for machinery purchased for manufac-
turing materials for a bridge, nor for appliances used to carry such materials
to the bridge. While the lien law is to be liberally construed, it can not
be stretched beyond its limits. Basshor v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 65 Md. 103.

This section is not applicable to coal cars, nor to any machinery movable
in its operation or use. New England, etc.. Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. 11
Mi 89.

The lien of a machinist on a machine which he builds and then puts up
. in a factory which is already subject to a mortgage, is subordinate to the
mortgage—see section 15. How a lien may arise under this section. Den-
mead V. Bank of Baltimore, 0 Md, 183. And see Jones v. Hancock, 1 Md.
Ch. 189. Cf. McKim v. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 210.

Where a machine against which a mechanics' Hen claim has been filed,
is sold in equity en masse with real estate, with an agreement that the
whole was to be sold free from incumbrances, the lien claimant is entitled
to share in the proceeds, and to that end the relative value of the real estate
and machinery may be proven. Wells v. Canton Co., 3 Md. 242 (overruling:
Jones v. Hancock, 1 Md. Ch. 190).

See sections 1 and 43 and notes.

1904, art.63, sec. 23. 1888, art. 63, sec. 23. 1860. art. 61, sec. 23.
1838, ch. 205, sec. 13.

23. Every such debt shall be a lien until after the expiration of six
months after the work has been finished or the materials furnished,
although no claim has been filed therefor, but no longer, unless a claim
shall be filed at or before the expiration of that period.

Time of filing claim.

When the claim may be filed in six months from the last item on the
account, and when it must be filed in six months from the time of the fur-
nishing of different parcels of materials or the doing of different portions of
the work—when contracts are entire and when separate and distinct. The
claim must be filed within six months from the completion of the work for
which the claim is flled, and not from the completion of the building. Com-
putation of time. German, etc., Church v. Heise, 44 Md. 476; Hensel v. John-
son, 94 Md. 732; Clark v. Boarman, 89 Md. 432; Maryland Brick Co. v. Dnn-
kerly, 85 Md. 210; Wilson v. Wilson. 51 Md. 159; Watts v. Whittington, 48
Md. 356; Okisko Co. v. Matthews, 3 Md. 176.

Where materials are furnished for a row of houses under one contract, and
the materials going into certain of the houses only have been furnished
within six months, the lieu Is valid as to all of the houses. Okisko Co. v.
Matthews, 3 Md. 177.

Where bricks are furnished, as ordered, for a number of houses without a
special contract, and three of them are completed more than six months
before the filing of the lien and are sold of record before the filing of the
lien, the delivery of bricks for certain of the other houses within the six
months will not extend the time so as to give the contractor a lien on the
three houses so completed and sold. Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 138.

The six months begins to run as to labor, from the time the building is
completed; as to materials, from the time they are furnished. Heath v.
Tyler, 44 Md. 318. Cf. Rosenthal v. Maryland Brick Co., 61 Md. 596.

Unless delivery of materials is proved within six months of the filing of
the claim, there can be no lien. Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 160; Ortwine v.
Caskey, 43 Md. 138.

Claim held to have been filed in time. German, etc., Church v. Heise, 44
Md. 476; Baker v. Winter, 15 Md. 10. Cf. Maryland Brick Co. v. Dunkerly,
85 Md. 211; Jean v. Wilson, 38 Md. 298.

Generally.

A claim will not be allowed where it is proven that certain materials were
furnished merely for the purpose of extending the time within which the
claim might be flled. Heath v. Tyler, 44 Md. 317. And see Greenway v.
Turner, 4 Md. 305.