ART. 63] SATISFACTION——AMENDMENTS. 1469

1904, art. 63, sec. 39. 1888, art. 63, sec. 39. 1860 art. 61, sec. 39.
1838, ch. 205, sec. 24.

39. In every case in which the amount of any such lien shall be paid
or otherwise satisfied, the claimant or his legal representative, at the
request of the owner of the building or of any other person interested
therein, and on payment of the costs, shall enter satisfaction on the
record of such claim in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the
county or superior court of Baltimore city, as the case may be, which
shall forever discharge and release the same.

Ibid. sec. 40. 1888, art. 63, sec. 40. 1860, art. 61, sec. 40.
1838, ch. 205, sec. 25.

40. If any person who shall have received satisfaction for such claim
shall neglect or refuse to enter satisfaction therefor within sixty days
after request and payment of the costs of suit, he shall forfeit and pay
to the party aggrieved any sum not exceeding one-half of the amount of
such claim, to be recovered in the same manner as debts of a like amount
are recoverable.

Ibid. sec. 41. 1888, art. 63, sec. 41. 1860, art. 61, sec. 41.
1845, ch. 287, sec. 1.

41. This article shall be construed and have the same effect as laws
which give general jurisdiction or are remedial in their nature; and
such amendments shall, from time to time and at any time, be made in
the proceedings, commencing with the claim or lien to be filed and
extending to all subsequent proceedings, as may be necessary and proper;
provided that the amount of the claim or lien filed shall not in any
case be enlarged.

Where a claim as filed, states that A is the contractor and B the owner,
it may be amended after the time within which it might be filed, so as to
show that A and C are both the builders and the equitable owners. What
amendments will be allowed? Real Estate Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 524. See
also, Lucas v. Taylor, 105 Md. 109.

The right to amend extends beyond the time when judgment or decree
has been entered. Rust v. Chisolm, 57 Md. 383; Real Estate Co. v. Phillips,
90 Md. 527.

The failure of the plaintiff who has been granted leave in an equity pro-
ceeding to amend his claim, to file an amended claim, Is not a bar to the
enforcement of the amended claim against parties to the equity case; contra,
perhaps, as to bona flde purchasers for value without notice of the amend-
ment. Lucas v. Taylor, 105 Md. 110.

The notice prescribed by section 11, can not be amended under this section,
after the expiration of the sixty days within which it must be filed. Kenly
v. Sisters of Charity, 63 Md. 311.

After the expiration of the time within which the lien might be filed, a
claimant can not amend the same, so as to change the location of the
property. Limitations upon the right of amendment. Ganlt v. Wittman, 34
Md. 35; Real Estate Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 525.

The operation of this section, limited. Kenly v. Sisters of Charity, 63 Md.
308; Plummer v. Eckenrode, 50 Md. 232; New England, etc., Co. v. B. & O.
R. R. Co., 11 Md. 91. Cf. Hess v. Poultney, 10 Md. 267.

This section applied, and other sections referred to as indicating the same
principle of construction. Blake v. Pitcher, 46 Md. 464. And see Lucas v.
Taylor, 105 Md. 111; Real Estate Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 526; Hermann v.
Mertens, 87 Md. 727; Rust v. Chisolm, 57 Md. 382.