Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-07-05

cult 90 conceive how, without HeNss
there can be an account = which IS an
;temized or detailed statement Of the
transactions to which It relates but
the difficulty in this case Is not alone
that il is not an iicmized account, bat
that it is not an account Of the things
required by the statute--of rork done
and material furnished. But if il
be true, as insisted, that when a
contract is made in gross for the erec-
ton Of a building and supplying the
material entering into it's construction
the law is complied with by filing a
statement OF the amount due and owing
for the work, it is not applicable in this
case because q considerable portion
Of the work was done and materials fur
nished under verbal contract or contracts
outside Of, and not included in, the writ
ten contract with Beck all Of which
are embraced in the itemized account
rendered by appellant to Beck, but
which account was not filed by appel
liant in the clerks Office to be recorded
as the law requires. 1t was indispen-
SADLY necessary for appellant to have
filed this account in the clerks Office,
and the law makes it the duty of the
clerk to record it, so as to affect all
persons with notice Of the lien claimed,
and 10 warn and protect all subsequent
purchasers or encumbrancers. Boston
& Co., rs. q. and o. Railroad Co., rs
Va, p. 1S2. Phillips, in his Mechdn-
ics' Liens, section 349, page $40, says ::
"Many reasons for such explicitness in
the notice as to the character Of the
work and the amount and character
of the materials contributed to the
building are apparent. 1t prevents
fraud on the part Of the sub-contractor
and collision by the contractor ena-
bles the owner to ascertain the correct
ness and reasonableness Of the demands,
and gives the most definite information
to purchasers and encumbrancers.'
The statute now under consideration
extends TO certain classes of operatives
and others Of the people embraced in
its provisions a security for their claims
that no other class enjoys; and it is no
hardship, in consideration of this, to re-
quire them to comply with the terms
upon which the benefaction is offered to
them. The feature of Che mechanics
lien law now under consideration is
not peculiar to the Virginia law. Many
of the States Of the Union have precise
" the same provision [see Maryland
Code 1878, PIP. 695-702, sections ii
and 1911; and in some Of them the ques-
tation which this court is asked to de-
termine in this case has been consider
ed and decided. In the case of Davis rs.
Livingston, Goth California, it is said,
1.-THE remedy is an extraordinary one,
and, therefore, all the provisions of the
act must be strictly complied with"
Citing Walker rs. Hauss-Ilijo, Calf,
1856; Bottomly rs. Grace Church, 2
Calf, Oh
In the case Of Non rs. Srinefori,
9th Penn, lS7: Henry Noll (carpen-
teri, of the township of Penns, in the
county of Union and State Of Pennsyl-
yania, filed his claim for 1896 as
well against certain brick building or
house Of worship erected on a part of
lot No. 104 as the piece of ground or
curtilage appurtenant thereto, situate.
&C.. which sum Of s579.65 the said
Henry Noll claims to be due him for
carpenter work and labor done and
performed in and about the erection of
said building as a carpenter, and for
materials-to wit: Lumber furnished
by the said Henry Noll between the
29th day of June, lS43, and the Odd of
February, 1914, &c. Bell, j., after
instructiDg the jury that the claim filed
under the mechanics lien law of 1896,
for materials furnished and work and
labor done, must state the amount
claimed for each as distinct item, or
the omission will render it totally in
valid, says sit has been felt that the
extraordinary remedy afforded by our
laws to mechanics and material-men
requires to be properly guarded to pre-
vent it from becoming a source of I'M
Just annoyance and injury to those
whose property is liable to be made the
subject Of its action. 1t has accord
ingly from time to time attracted
legislative attention, until the fruit
of former experience was embodied in
the act of the 10th of June, 1885,
which provides, inter ala, that the
claim or statement filed in the Office of
the prothonotary shall set out the
amount or sum claimed to be due,
and the nature or kind of the work
done, or the kind and amount Of mate
rails furnished, &C., as the case may
be-" AS this statute confers a large
license upon the class Of meritoriouS
citiz ems whose interests it is intended
to advance, our courts have found it
necessary for the protection OF
others to hold them 10 at least
a substantial compliance with the
requirements of the Acts of As
sembly. This observance is, indeed,
absolutely essential to the safety OF
owners, purchasers, and other lien
creditors, as furnishing some data by
which, in case of dispute, they may be
enabled to search out the truth. The
clue may be an imperfect one ; but in
this consideration may be found add
tional.reason why it should be afforded
to those who, otherwise, are left to
grope in obscurity, without even a
glimmer of light by which to direct re-
search. AS the law calls for nothing
unreasonable at the hand of him who
would fasten an encumbrance upon the
property Of his neighbor, no just ground
of complaint is afforded by insisting
upon a rigid adherence to its provisions,
The information it exacts is, or ought
to be, entirely within the power Of the
creditor to give, and an omission to put
it on the record is, therefore, without
excuse. Rehrer rs. Zeigler, 3 Watts
& Serg., 25S; Thomas Us. James,
Watts & Serg., 3sl; Whitman rs.
Walker, 0 Watts & Serg., 1856. .
Indeed, the great object of the statute
in pointing out the characteristics Of
the statement to be filed would, in the
end. be utterly defeated were we to In