National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-05-22
THE COURTS.
sunreme Court-Gensral Term.

Supreme Court-General Term
Chief Justice Cartier and Justices Olin, Wylie
and MscArthur sat in 6GRe yesterday, and were
engaged as fellows:
Riggs W. Kernwein. This case was reported
yesterday. 1t involves the question whether,
within the time allowed by law, the justice has
power to accept an appeal bond after that time me-
The argument was continued by Mr.. Selden, and
concluded by Mr.. N. H. Miller.
MECHANICS LIEN CASE.
VIM. Mclean vs.. Mary q. Young ct al. This
is a case arising under the mechanics lien law OF
this District. It was a proceeding to enforce
the lien filed in the clerks ofhce:
VIM. Mclean VS.. Mary q. Young. Notice OF
S1nrss 0oupt az he 65ir,c ~ 1 SoSImSia You
win please file and record this my notice Of lien
to Mary q. Young, wife OF F. A. Young, and TO
lien upon lots Iettered A, B, 4, d and E, in the
subdivision Of original lot No, 2, in square No.
79l recorded in the office Of the surveyor Of the
city Of Washington, in Liber X. W., No. !, folio
81, and on the buildings erected thereon, for ma
terial furnished by me to the said F. A. Young,
to the bill Of particulars hereto annexed as part
Of this notice, amounting to the Of q, 61O.s7.
which materials were used in the construction OF
EUGENE CARUsI, Solicitor.
On the I'D Of December, A. D. 1874, the court
passed decree for the sale Of the property de-
scrbed in the bill and in the above notice of lien,
for by the bill.
II was subsequently discovered t0AL the prop
erty upon which the plaintiff intended to nile
lien was situated n square No. 97I, and not in
square No. 19l, as described in the notice Of lien
and in the bill.
On the 4th day Of February A. D. 1875, the
court, upon consent Of counsel ordered that the
above decree for sale be vacated, land that the
bill Of complaint stand amended so as to read
square No. 97l, instead of square No. 79I, and
that Mary q. Young have leave TO except to the
The court then, on the Eth day Of Mareh, A. D.
1876 passed decree for the sale Of the property
described in the bill Of complaint as amended, to
satisfy the plaintiffs claim. From this decree
peal to this court.
Mr.. b. H. webb, for the appellant, argues that
the lien Of the mechanic is exclusively the crea-
ture Of statute, deriving its existence only from
positive enactment. 1t is a mere incidental &C
remedy given by law, which secures the pref
erence provided for, but which does not exist,
however equitable the claim may be, unless the
party brings himself within the provisions OF the
statute. and shows a substantial compliance with
all Its essential requirements
The decisions are unanimous that when a no.
tice is required by statute either to create or con-
tinue the lien, 1t is matter Of substantial require
ment, and must Ge. complied with on the part OF
So strictly are the statutory requirements to be
complied with that although a general appear
anee Of q defendant may waive defects In the in
stitutiOn Of the foreclosure proceedings, yet 1t
does not waive any defect in the previous notice
to create the lien. For the acquisition Of the
statutory lien the statute itself must be strictly
Us
party claims q right not existing at common law.
The description must correctly point out the
property to be charged with the lien. A creditor
cannot claim against building in one public
another.
To enforce lion the party must describe the
land with sufficient accuracy to enable the court
TO decree the sale and the purchaser to ind the
land under such description. Any such insufi-
cheney in the notice may be taken advantage of
by the owner, sc.
Mr. E. Carusi for the appellee, argues that the
act Of Congress does not require that the notice Of
lien contain particular description OF the prem
Uses, but only that Il indicate with sufficient
tanty, the property to be affected by it. Thus
description Of the property in controversy as 1.-The
building on the southeast corner Of South Caro-
lima avenue and Tenth street east, and the lot OF
ground upon which the same is situated" or as
''lots lettered A, B. @, d and Z, in the sub.diyi.
sion OF original lot recorded &C., in liber No. l,
folio g. without giving the number Of the square
would be compliance with the requirement Of
the act in this particular. And this, though the
law should require correct description" Of the
property to be given.
The object Of the statute In requiring the
"notice Of his intention to hold LEM to be filed
in the clerks office maniiestly is to give notice,
by that mode, to the owner Of the property, and
to third parties, Of the mechanics election to
proceed against that specific property for the
satisfaction Of his demand. II this object Is &C
eomplishcd In the mode prescribed by the act,
that s, by the notice Of lien, then as between the
lienOr and owner, the lien is not lost by any mac
euracy or omission in the notice not misleading
the owner; - -. - -,,--...,--
Inc NOTICE OF lien IN tnls case eHecJuaIeS the
object Of the statute, so far the owner OF prop
eIty is concerned, and does not mislead her, for
the defendant, in her answer to the original bill,
admits that plaintiff furnished lumber and ma
terials for the buildings mentioned in the bill of
complaint; that the description of the property
mentioned in the bill is correct and that the land
is owned by her.
The act Of Congress does not require that the
bill shall follow the description Of the property
given in the notice of lien. The language of the
statute, in this behalf is "that the complaint of
the plaintiff shall contain brief statement Of the
contract with description Of the prem.
ises."
The court has the authority, as matter OF law,
to authorize the amendment OF the bill. And If
it had not, authority TO do so was conferred by
consent Of counsel.
The case was not concluded.
The court then adjourned until Monday next.
Circuit Court-Mr. Justice Humphreys.
This court was engaged as follows yesterday:
Ncherson vs. Underhill. Sealed verdict for
$50, in case tried on Thursday.
Bliss vs.. Smolinski. Verdict for plaintiff in
fifty dollars.
Wizard VS.. Hayes ct al. Verdict for plaintiff in
Sll,5OO.
Little VS.. Berkeley, (appeals.) Judgment be-
low affirmed by consent.
CASES FOR MONDAY.
Nos 20, %, SO, III, Ia, 1l9 and 100.
Tie court then adjourned until Monday at II