MECHANICS' LIEN 2553

Unless delivery of materials is proved within six months of filing of the claim, there
can be no lien. Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 160; Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 138.

Claim held to have been filed in time. German, etc., Church v. Heise, 44 Md. 476;
Baker v. Winter, 15 Md. 10. Cf. Maryland Brick Co. v. Dunkerly, 85 Md. 211; Jean
v. Wilson, 38 Md. 298.

A claim held defective because it failed to show that work charged and materials
referred to in two items had been performed and furnished within the six months. Wix
v. Bowling, 120 Md. 267.

Generally.

A claim will not be allowed where it is proven that certain materials were furnished
merely for purpose of extending time within which claim might be filed. Heath v.
Tyler, 44 Md. 317. And see Greenway v. Turner, 4 Md. 305.

Evidence insufficient to bring claim within requirements of this section; no proof
that plaintiff sold materials to defendant and held him responsible for the debt. Alter
v. Eckhardt, 143 Md. 664.

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.

After expiration of time within which lien may be filed, claim as filed cannot be
amended so as to change location of property. Gault v. Wittman, 34 Md. 36.

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

Cited but not construed in McLaughlin v. Reinhart, 54 Md. 76.

This section referred to—see notes to sec. 11. Caltrider v. Weant, 147 Md. 343.

See secs. 11 and 17 and notes.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 24. 1912, sec. 24. 1904, sec. 24. 1888, sec. 24. 1838, ch. 205, sec. 14.
1868, ch. 23. 1939, ch. 754, sec. 24.

24. The proceedings to recover the amount of any lien under this
article, whether upon a house, machine, wharf, bridge, boat or vessel, shall
be by bill in equity and the same proceedings shall be had as used by the
courts of equity to enforce other liens and the court shall decree a sale and
appoint a trustee to make sale thereof and shall apportion the proceeds of
such sale among the persons entitled to liens according to their respective
rights.¹

Whether one or the other course pointed out by this section to enforce the lien is¹
adopted, the claim as filed is the foundation, and recovery is dependent upon a sub-
stantial compliance with the law. Wehr v. Shryock, 55 Md. 337.

In view of this section and sec. 14, the fact that the plaintiff's claim is less than twenty
dollars is immaterial. Watts v. Whittington, 48 Md. 357.

1 Secs. 25 to 35 of 1924 Code repealed by ch. 754, Act of 1939 and these notes re-
late to these sections as contained in said Code:

25. Proceedings for enforcement of mechanics' liens are exclusively in, rem; effect
thereof. The court need not determine whether party named as owner in the claim as
filed is real owner. Shryock v. Hensel, 95 Md. 626. And see Kelly v. Gilbert, 78 Md. 438;
Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 183; Carson v. White, 6 Gill, 25. Cf. McKim v. Mason, 3
Md. Ch. 212. And see Long Contracting Co. v. Albert, 116 Md. 114; Caltrider v. Isberg,
148 Md. 667.

Independent of act of 1898, ch. 457, a husband should be made a party defendant
to a bill in equity to enforce mechanics' lien against wife. Clark v. Boarman, 89 Md. 430.

Cited in Parker v. Morgan, 170 Md. 13.

For 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.

Cited but not construed in Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 136.

26. Where a claim is filed for separate amounts against two different buildings, two
sums should not be blended in writ and a lien for whole claimed on each building.
Plummer v. Eckenrode, 50 Md. 234.

An action under this section is not a suit for debt or damage, but a proceeding
in rem. Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 184. And see Shyrock v. Hensel, 95 Md. 626.

The sci. fa. notifies the defendant and gives him an opportunity of showing cause
against enforcing the lien. Kees v. Kerney, 5 Md. 422.

28. Where the sci. fa. is issued against certain parties only, and notice required by
sec. 29 is not given, judgments recovered cannot affect rights of third persons having
liens. McKim v. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 210.

This section must be strictly complied with by the sheriff, and his return must
show a full compliance. Plummer v. Eckenrode, 50 Md. 232.

30. Where a claim is filed for separate amounts against two different buildings, the
two sums should not be blended in the writ and a lien for the whole claimed on each
building. Plummer v. Eckenrode, 50 Md. 234.