2152 ARTICLE 63.

one such period to another, unless such lien be satisfied or extinguished
by a sale or otherwise according to law.

Under this section, the sci. fa. must issue within five years; lien compared with
a judgment. Blocher v. Worthington, 10 Md. 4. And see Lucas v. Taylor, 105 Md.
112.

See sec. 46 and note.

An. Code, sec. 39. 1904, sec. 39. 1888, 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 re-
quest 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.

An. Code, sec. 40. 1904, sec. 40. 1888, 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.

An. Code, sec. 41. 1904, sec. 41. 1888, 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 j 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 he amount of the claim or lien filed shall not in any case be enlarged.

Where a claim as filed, states that A is contractor and B owner, it may be
amended after time within which it might be filed, so as to show that A and C are
both builders and 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 plaintiff who has been granted leave in an equity proceeding to
amend, to file an amended claim, is not a bar to the enforcement of the amended
claim against parties to equity case; contra, perhaps, as to bona fide purchasers for
value without notice of amendment. Lucas v. Taylor, 105 Md. 110.

The notice prescribed by sec. 11, cannot be amended under this section, after ex-
piration of the sixty days within which it must be filed. Kenly v. Sisters of Charity,
63 Md. 311.

After expiration of time within which lien might be filed, a claimant cannot
amend same, so as to change location of property. Limitations upon the right of
amendment. Gault 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.