ART. 63] PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE LIEN. 1465

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

After the expiration of the time within which the Hen may be filed, the
claim as filed can not be amended so as to change the location of the prop-
erty. Gault v. Wittman, 34 Md. 36.

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

Cited but not construed in McLaughlln v. Reinhart, 54 Md. 76.

See sections 11 and 17 and notes.

1904, art. 63, sec. 24. 1S8S, art. 63, sec. 24. 1860, art. 61, sec. 24. 1838, ch. 205,

sec. 14. 1868, ch. 23.

24. The proceedings to recover the amount of any lien under this
article, whether upon a house, machine, wharf, bridge, boat or vessel,
shall be by bill in equity or by scire facias.

Whether the one or the other course pointed out by this section to enforce
the lien is adopted, the claim as filed is the foundation, and recovery is
dependent upon a substantial compliance with the law. Wehr v. Shryock,
55 Md. 337.

In view of this section and section 14, the fact that the plaintiff's claim is
less than twenty dollars, is Immaterial. Watts v. Whittington, 48 Md. 357.

Ibid. sec. 25. 1888, art. 63, sec. 25. 1838. ch. 205, sec. 14.
1860, art. 61, sec. 25.

25. If the proceeding is by bill in equity, the same proceedings shall
be had as used by the courts of equity to enforce other liens and the
court shall decree a sale and appoint a trustee to make sale thereof and
shall apportion the proceeds of such sale among the persons entitled to
liens according to their respective rights.

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.
626. And see Kelly v. Gilbert, 78 Md. 438; Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 183;
Carson v. White, 6 Gill, 25. Cf. McKim v. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 212.

Independent of the act of 1898, ch. 457, a husband should be made a party
defendant to a bill in equity to enforce a mechanics' lien against the wife.
Clark v. Boarman, 89 Md. 430.

For a case involving the enforcement of a lien by sureties, who guaranteed
against liens, see German, etc., Church v. Heise, 44 Md. 476. See also, Pin-
ning v. Skipper, 71 Md. 351.

Cited but not construed in Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 136.

Ibid. sec. 20. 1888. art 63, sec. 20. 1860, art. 61, sec. 26.
1838, ch. 205, sec. 14.

26. If the proceeding to enforce such lien is by scire facias, the scire
facias shall recite the filing of the claim with the name of the owner
of the property to be affected by the lien, the name of the claimant and
the amount of claim and the date of filing the same, with the usual
clause of scire facias to the persons to be affected by such writ.

Where a claim is filed for separate amounts against two different build-
ings, the two sums should not be blended in the writ and a lien for the
whole claimed on each building. Plummer v. Bekenrode, 50 Md. 234.

An action under this section is not a suit for debt or damage, but a pro-
ceeding in rem. Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 184. And see Shryock v. Hensel,
95 Md. 626.

The sci. fa. notifies the defendant and gives him an opportunity of show-
ing cause against enforcing the lien. Kees v. Keniey, 5 Md. 422.