MECHANICS' LIEN. 2139

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

A lien claimant has an insurable interest in a building prior to filing of his claim
under sec. 23. Franklin Co. v. Coates, 14 Md. 296; Sodini v. Winter, 32 Md. 133.

Nature and extent of a mechanics' lien. Evans Co. v. International Trust Co.,
101 Md. 218; Wilson v. Simon, 91 Md. 6; Willison v. Douglas, 66 Md. 102; Rein-
dollar v. Flickinger, 59 Md. 471; McLaughlin v. Reinhart, 54 Md. 76; Treusch v.
Shryock, 51 Md. 172; Blake v. Pitcher, 46 Md. 465; Sodini v. Winter, 32 Md. 133.

In Baltimore county, where a contractor temporarily abandons work and owner
takes work up but subsequently contractor resumes charge, a contract with owner
as to materials furnished subsequent to such resumption by contractor was held
not to be established by evidence, and lien held invalid. Carroll v. Waters, 108 Md.
420 (decided prior to act, 1910, ch. 52).

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

For a case holding that act of 1838, ch. 205, was sufficiently identified, although
referred to as act of 1839, and also dealing with act of 1845, ch. 176, see Pue v. Hetzell,
16 Md. 549.

Quaere, whether there can be a lien on a building and adjacent land, for bricks
furnished for a pavement around building. Watts v. Whittington, 48 Md. 357.

Cited but not construed in Wilson v. Jones, 46 Md. 358.

Re. mechanics' liens on machines, etc., see sec. 22; as to boats, see sec. 43.

As to liens of the owners of stallions, see art. 27, secs. 224 and 225.

See notes to secs. 11, 19 and 23.

An. Code, sec. 2. 1904, sec. 2. 1888, sec. 2. 1845, ch. 287, sec. 3.

2. In all cases in which a building shall be commenced and not finished
the lien shall attach thereto to the extent of the work done or materials
furnished.

Where a heating plant is not put in until after the building is completed, there
can be no lien under this section. Shacks v. Ford, 128 Md. 288.
Cited but not construed in McLaughlin v. Reinhart, 54 Md. 76.
See notes to secs. 1 and 15.

An. Code, sec. 3. 1904, sec. 3. 1888, sec. 3. 1845, ch. 287, sec. 5.

3. No person having such lien shall be considered as waiving the same
by granting a credit or receiving notes or other securities, unless the same
be received as payment or the lien be expressly waived, but the sole effect
thereof shall be to prevent the institution of any proceedings to enforce
said lien until the expiration of the time agreed upon.

While mere acceptance of a note and its transfer by claimant is not a waiver of his
lien, if endorsee, when the note comes due with knowledge and assent of claimant,
accepts a new note from maker without claimant's endorsement, and so disposes of
new note that it is beyond the control of claimant and cannot be produced or
accounted for by him, the inference arises that the note was regarded as a payment
and that claimant waived his lien. Wix v. Bowling, 120 Md. 273.

Mortgage and contract held not to amount to a waiver of lien. What will amount
to a waiver? Maryland Brick Co. v. Spilman, 76 Md. 344; McLaughlin v. Reinhart,
54 Md. 76; Sodini v. Winter, 32 Md. 134.

The application of the last clause of this section is not limited to party with whom
contract for credit is made. Fraud (in obtaining credit), held not e'stablished.
Thomas v. Turner, 16 Md. 110.

Lien held to be waived by a special contract. Pinning v. Skipper, 71 Md. 348;
Willison v. Douglas, 66 Md. 101.

Lien held to be waived, or that the claimant was estopped to claim priority.
Goldman v. Brinton, 90 Md. 264.

This section applied. Blake v. Pitcher, 46 Md. 467; Thomas v. Turner, 16 Md. 110;
Frederick County B'k. v. Dunn, 125 Md. 398.