Beehler v. Ijams

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We agree with the Court below, that the liens claimed in this case attach to and may be enforced against the leasehold estate; but we do not agree that they are enforceable against the reversionary interest of Beehler, the appellant. Where materials are furnished to one who is the oioner in fee, the lien, no doubt, attaches not only to the building itself, but also to so much of the ground as may be necessary for the ordinary and useful purposes of such building. Sec. 4, Art. 63 of the Code.

But where, as in this case, the property is leased for ninety-nine years, renetodble forever, upon the payment of annual ground rent to the lessor and his assigns, and the building is erected by the lessee or his agent, the lien attaches to the leasehold estate only. Sec. 9, Art. 63. The lessee, in such cases, has the absolute control and management of the property, and has the exclusive right to improve it, so long as he pays the stipulated rent, and renews the lease according to the terms of the covenant, and he and his representatives are entitled to hold, occupy and enjoy the property, and the reversioner can never, under any circumstances, obtain possession of the demised premises. All this was said in Crowe vs. Wilson, 65 Md., 479 .

Now in this case, Ould, on the 29th April, 1887, conveyed to Bond a lot of ground in fee. This lot Bond divided into eleven building lots ; and on the same day, ¹⁹⁶ April 29th, he leased to Carson three of these lots for ninety-nine years, renewable forever, upon the payment of an annual ground rent of $141, on each lot. On May 2nd, 1881, at 8.30 A. M., the deed from Ould to Bond and the deed from Bond to Carson were reporded among the land records of Baltimore County. Earlier in the morning of the same day, May 2nd, at 1 o’clock, the buildings on the lots leased to Carson were begun, and the materials for which these liens are claimed were furnished in the course of the erection of these buildings.

It thus appears that the buildings were begun one hour and thirty minutes before the deed in fee to Bond and the deed of the leasehold to Carson were filed for record; and, this being so, the lien for the materials it is claimed attached to the property in fee. But to this we cannot agree. The mechanics’ lien attaches no-doubt from the time the building is actually begun j but the deed from Ould to Bond and the deed from Bond to Carson, although recorded on the 2nd of May, were executed on the 29th of April, and having been recorded within the time prescribed by the Code, they take eifect from the day of their execution. Code, Art. 21, sec. 14. ¡So, when these buildings were begun and when the liens attached, Carson was the oioner of the leasehold, and Bond was the oioner of the reversion; and, such being the interests of the respective parties, if the case rested here, there could be no ground for claiming that these liens attached not only to the leasehold, but also to the reversionary interest of Bond.

For although the Code provides that a mechanics’ lien shall be preferred to a mortgage, unless the mortgage is recorded before the lien attaches, there is no such provision in regard to deeds, and, in the absence of such a provision, the title of the grantee relates, as we have said, to the time the deed was executed. ¹⁹⁷ It'seems, however, there was an agreement or understanding of some kind between Carson, the owner of the leasehold, and Bond, the owner of the reversion, that these buildings were to be erected at their joint expense, and when they should be sold, the proceeds were to be divided between them according to the value of their respective interests. Bond was to superintend the erection of the buildings, with full authority to purchase materials ; and it was upon his order that the