MECHANICS' LIEN 2545

An. Code, 1924, see. 3. 1912, 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 ac-
counted 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 established. 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; Cf. Caltrider v. Weant, 147 Md. 348 (see notes to
sec. 11);

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 Bk. v. Dunn, 125 Md. 398.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 4. 1912, sec. 4. 1904, sec. 4. 1888, sec. 4. 1838, ch. 205, sec. 2.

4. The said lien shall extend to the ground covered by such building
and to so much other ground immediately adjacent thereto and belong-
ing in like manner to the owner of such building as may be necessary for
the ordinary and. useful purposes of such building, the quantity and
boundaries whereof shall be designated in the following manner.

A lien for the erection of buildings for a school, held to be restricted to farm tract
on which such buildings were located, and not to extend to adjoining land owned by
defendant. This section compared with sec. 7. Filston Farm Co. v. Henderson, 106
Md. 374.

Where two lots though contiguous are wholly distinct, and buildings are not located
on smaller lot, which is not necessary for ordinary and useful purposes of buildings,
latter will not be sold in enforcing lien. Fulton v. Parlett, 104 Md. 71.

Cited but not construed in Beehler v. Ijams, 72 Md. 195.

See sec. 15 and notes.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 5. 1912, sec. 5. 1904, sec. 5. 1888, sec. 5. 1838, ch. 205, sec. 4.

1939, ch. 754, sec. 5.

5. The owner of any lot or farm who may be desirous of erecting any
building or of contracting with any person for the erection thereof may
define in writing the boundaries of the lot or land or curtilage appurtenant
to such building previously to the commencement thereof and file the same
with the clerk of the circuit court for the county, or of the circuit court
of Baltimore City, as the case may be, for record, and such designation of
boundaries shall be obligatory upon all persons concerned.

Where owner fails to avail himself of this section and secs. 6, 7 and 8, he cannot avoid
lien merely because too much land is claimed. Caltrider v. Isberg, 148 Md. 663.

Where owner fails to avail himself of this section, or of secs. 6 or 8, the decree will
not be reversed because more land was directed to be sold than was necessary for
ordinary and useful purposes of buildings. Fulton v. Parlett, 104 Md. 70.

Cited but not construed in Filston Farm Co. v. Henderson, 106 Md. 373.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 6. 1912, sec. 6. 1904, sec. 6. 1888, sec. 6. 1838, ch. 205, sec. 5.
1845, ch. 287, sec. 6. 1939, ch. 754, sec. 6.

6. In default of such designation of boundaries previous to the com-
mencement of any building, it shall be lawful for the owner of such lot