MECHANICS' LIEN 2543

When a lien exists.

Mechanics' lien for work and labor on building preferred to unrecorded installment
contract of sale of land for unpaid purchase price where vendors of land permitted,
without warning or protest, work on improvements ordered by vendee in spite of vendee's
default. Moreland v. Meade, 162 Md. 95.

Material man's right to the lien is not affected by whether owner has money in
his hands due builder, or whether former has performed his contract with latter. Treusch
v. Shryock, 51 Md. 173.

It is no defense to mechanics' lien claim that the materials were furnished on per-
sonal credit of contractor, or that there was no contract between material man and
owner. Agency. Blake v. Pitcher, 46 Md. 465; Sodini v. Winter, 32 Md. 134.

Before owner can be made responsible for materials furnished contractor, an active
and subsisting contract must be established between owner and contractor. Greenway
v. Turner, 4 Md. 304.

A sub-contractor who does the work in the sense of giving it direction and being re-
sponsible for its execution is entitled to lien, and it makes no difference that work
was not done on premises erected. Evans Co. v. International Trust Co., 101 Md. 213.

This section held inapplicable because repairs did not amount to one-fourth of value
of building. A range, furnace, heaters, registers, etc., for heating a dwelling, are within
contemplation of this section. Stebbins v. Culbreth, 86 Md. 657. See also Schaper v.
Bibb, 71 Md. 150; Weber v. Weatherby, 34 Md. 659.

Where materials are furnished on a contract with one partner and used by both
partners in construction of building, they being owners as well as builders, the lien can
be enforced against the other partner and his assignee. Real Estate Co. v. Phillips, 90
Md. 528.

A material man's lien will attach although owner of lots upon which houses are built
has only an equitable interest. The fact that lien is filed against a lesser interest
than it might have been does not destroy lien. Goldheim v. Clark, 68 Md. 504.

Fact that part of builder's compensation is to be one of houses built does not affect
fastening of lien. McLaughlin v. Reinhart, 54 Md. 78.

Lands or buildings belonging to the state (such as a building being erected for Spring-
field state hospital) are not subject to mechanics' liens; neither secs. 13, 20 nor 32
affect this conclusion. In re Fowble, 213 Fed. 676.

Where the cost of a heating plant is not one-fourth of value of building in which it
is installed, there can be no lien under this section. Shacks v. Ford, 128 Md. 288.

When lienable and non-lienable items are included in one entire contract for a
lump sum, there being no apportionment between them, lien cannot be enforced.
The fact, however, that in connection with operation of a steam shovel, coal, oil,
depreciation and profit were included in lump price, does not defeat right to lien
(there being no lien in Baltimore City for materials). Cases reviewed. Gill v. Mullan,
140 Md. 5.

The right to a mechanics' lien is not a vested one, but is a remedy only, created
by statute; right to lien depends entirely upon statute, and party seeking remedy
must come within provisions of statute. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Lacios, 121 Md. 690.

In Baltimore City there is a mechanics' lien only for labor and not for materials.
Where an indivisible building contract includes labor and materials, there is in Balti-
more City no lien for either. Punctuation is not an essential part of act; act of 1910,
ch. 52, interpreted. Dunn v. Brager, 116 Md. 244. And see Dipaula v. Green, 116
Md. 484.

The sale of a house and lot while the building is in process of erection cannot affect
right to a lien of a mechanic previously employed, and who continues to be employed
thereafter. Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 183.

For a case holding that articles were furnished under authority of owner, and hence
that lien could be enforced, see Weber v. Weatherby, 34 Md. 661. And see Real
Estate Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 527.

Release of certain houses.

Where materials are furnished for two houses, and material man releases his lien as
to one of them, he cannot claim lien against the other for materials furnished for
house so released. Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 160; Nickel v. Blanch, 67 Md. 460.

Where there is an entire contract to furnish materials for certain houses, and claimant
releases some of houses from his lien, the burden is on parties attacking lien to show
which materials went into houses released, and for which therefore there should be no
lien. Waiver of liens. Maryland Brick Co. v. Dunkerly, 85 Md. 212.

subject to a lien for the payment of all debts contracted for, materials furnished for
or about the same." The case of Dunn v. Brager, 116 Md. 244, is, however, authority
for the above codification of the act of 1910.

Act of 1898, ch. 502, repealed secs. 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 and 33
of this article, so far as these sections relate to Baltimore City, and re-enacted them with
amendments limiting the right of lien in Baltimore City to mechanics and workmen for
unpaid work and labor and putting an end as to Baltimore City to the lien in favor of
material men—see notes to sec. 1. The pre-existing law was not changed by act of 1898
as to the counties.