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

Vhcf pefson, t14,3< 10 0L14 calm :
lion, IN virtue Of this Actof Assembly,
IN his statement to be filsd IN the Office
OF Baltimore County Court, must not
only state the sum claimed. but must
also, IN The statoaenf 10 be filed there.
Tor the inspection and scrutiny Of all
persons who are or may become inte-
rested in the premises, give q Dill Of
particulars whereby all who may
be interested can ascertain not only
the amount demanded, but the
correctness and reasonableness Of
the demand. The items must be
furnished, in order that other creditors
and persons interested may know for
what services and what materials the
sum alleged to be due is claimed, and
thus have an opportunity of proving
the injustice or extravaganza Of the
demand. All this must be done in
terms sufficiently explicit and compre-
hensive, in order to prevent the frauds
which otherwise might be practiced
upon Others"
In the case Of Trustees Of the
German Lutheran Church, &C., rs.
Heise x Co. Ct ais, A Nd, asa, the
claim was for materials furnished, and
the notice Of the intention to claim the
lien states the amount Of the claim as
charged in an itemized account, but
failed to state what the claim was
for-whether work or Materials The
Court say; "As decided in the case Of
Thomas rs. Barber, 10 Nd, $50, the
object of the notice is to impart in
formation to the owner Of the amount
and character Of the claim intended to be
fixed as a lien upon the property, so
that he may protect himself in his
future dealings with the contractor.
The requirement Of the law in this re-
spect imposes no hardship upon the
party asserting the lien, but only Sc
cures to the owner as means of pro-
lection what the Legislature intended
for his benefit. The notice here would
seem to be fatally defective"
In the case at bar, il the appellant
has failed to secure the benefit of the
statute, such failure is due wholly to
want Of attention to the express and
plain provisions Of the law. We do
not think that the Circuit Court erred
in holding that the paper filed with
compliments bill as Exhibit No. |,
whereby he sought to secure a mechan-
les lien upon the property referred to
in the said bill, is invalid and ineffec-
tual for such purpose, because it is not
drawn and recorded as the law requires,
and that no lien was created upon the
property of Beck, the appellee, by APP
pellant's filing in the clerks office the
said paper; and that L. w. Gambler
purchased the property free aud dis
charged Of any lien or encumbrance in
favor Of the appellant.
But although Gambler, the purchaser,
cannot be affected with notice by i'm
plication Of law, because of the failure
TO file and record the statement and
account for labor and material as the
law prescribes. yet it is insisted by APP
pellant that Gambler and Moore, now
interested in the property or the pro-
ceeds Of it. had actual notice of appel
lant's claims. There is not any evil
dcnce in the record even tending to
show that either of them knew Of or
suspected the existence of appellants
claim until after their rights had at
tached to the property and its proceeds,
and the allegations i'll the bill on this
point are expressly denied in the an
swers of both Gambler and Moore.
But suppose, in fact, they did have
notice, would that have cured the error
or failure of appellant to file his account
and statement according to the require
ments of the statue? Suppose appellant
had actually showed the items of his
account to Gambler, the purchaser of
the property. and not filed it in the
clerks office at all, could he thereby
present lien upon the property? The
question in the case is, Did appellant
proceed according to law, so as to &C
quire lien on the property under the
third and fourth sections of the statute !?
Gambler is a complete purchaser. He
paid to Beck al the purchase-money,
reSeryipg by the contract enough to pay
the liens which he assumed to pay by
the contract; and he has received his
deed for the property. Subsequent
lienors, Moore, Russell, and Rely q
Tucker have all acquired claims on the
fund, without notice Of appellants
claim, and for valuable consideration.
They have been diligent and active in as
serting their rights he has failed to
pursue the plain and express provisions
Of the statute. Appellant complains of
the decree rendered in the court below
in the suit of Gambler rs. Russell, heard
with this cause of Shackleford rs.
Beck, &c. This was a decree perpetu-
ating an injunction against the enforce
ment of ajudgment in favor of Russell
against Mcdonald & Moore out Of the
purchsse-money still in the hands of
Gambler, reserved expressly to pay
liens upon the property obtained before
Russcll's judgment, and Of this he can
not complain.
We think there is no error in the
DEGREES complained Of, and they must
be affirmed.
Judges Lewis and Richardson dis
sented.