Dunn v. Brager

Pearce, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill of complaint in this case was filed by the appellants, for the enforcement of a mechanics’ lien claim for work done and material furnished and used in the construction of a building belonging to Albert A. Brager, originally the sole defendant, and situated in the City of Baltimore. This work was done and materials furnished under a contract between the appellants and the Engineering and Contracting Company, a body corporate engaged in the erection of said building for the said Brager under their contract with him, and all the formal requirements of law preliminary to the enforcement of a valid claim were complied ²⁴⁴ with. The said Brager, however, demurred to the whole bill, .assigning three grounds of demurrer: (1) Because the plaintiffs have not stated in their bill such a case as entitles them to any relief in equity against him.

(2) Because the Court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed. (3) Because there is no valid law of the State of Maryland which entitles the plaintiffs to the right to a mechanics' lien as stated in their bill. Thereafter, the Engineering and Contracting Company having been adjudicated a bankrupt, Charles Lee Merrikin, its trustee in bankruptcy, was on his petition made a party defendant, and he filed the following demurrer and answer: “Answering said Bill of Complaint, this respondent says: “1. That this respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs one, two, three, four and five of said bill, but denies that the Act of Assembly of the State of Maryland of the year 1910, Chapter 52, is a valid and legal statute of the State of Maryland, giving a mechanics’ lien for materials, in the City of Baltimore, because section 30 of the Constitution of the State of Maryland provides as follows: “ ‘Every bill, when passed by the General Assembly and sealed with the Great Seal, shall be presented to the Governor, who, if he approves it, shall sign the same in the presence of the presiding officers and chief clerks of the Senate and House of Delegates.’ “And because said alleged Act of Assembly, known as Chapter 52 of the Acts of 1910, when passed by the General Assembly and sealed with the Great Seal, read, in part, as follows: “ ‘Every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt or improved to the extent of one-fourth its value in Baltimore City and in any of the counties shall be subject to a lien for the payment of all debts contracted for work done for or about the same, and in the counties every such building shall also be subject to a lien for the payment of all debts contracted for materials furnished for or about the same.’ ²⁴⁵ “As will more fully appear by the original act as passed by the yea and nay vote of the Senate and House of Delegates of the State of Maryland, which is herewith filed marked ‘Respondent C. L. M. Exhibit A,’ and which it is prayed may be taken as part hereof, and as will more fully appear by said original bill, as engrossed and referred to the Attorney-General, and by the advice of said Attorney-General, and at the request of the General Assembly of Maryland, returned to said General Assembly for amendments, and, as amended, passed by said General Assembly by the yea and nay vote of each house thereof, and sealed with the Great Seal of the State of Maryland, as will more fully appear by said last-mentioned bill, which is herewith filed marked ‘Respondent C. L. M. Exhibit B,’ and which is prayed may be taken as part hereof. “And said alleged Act of Assembly, when passed and sealed as aforesaid, was enrolled, and during said enrollment, through error or inadvertence, was made to read, by the improper, inadvertent and unauthorized insertion of a period, contrary to the acts and intent of the General Assembly of Maryland, as follows : “ ‘Every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt or improved to the extent of one-fourth its value in Baltimore City and in any of the counties shall be subject to a lien for the payment of all debts contracted for work done for or about the same, and in the counties.

Every such building shall also be subject to a lien for the payment of all debts contracted for materials furnished for or about the same.’ “And as enrolled as last above set forth was signed by the Governor of the State of Maryland, and by reason thereof said Act of Assembly, signed as aforesaid, is not a valid law of the State of Maryland. “And because said alleged act, as signed by the Governor of Maryland ‘was not passed in each house by a majority of the whole number of members elected,’ in accordance with the requirements of section 28 of the Constitution of the State of Maryland. “Wherefore, having as fully answered said bill as this respondent is advised is necessary and proper, this respondent prays to be hence dismissed with costs. ²⁴⁶ “And as in duty bound, etc., “Chas. Lee Merrikeh Respondent. “(Affidavit attached.)” “Carville D. Behsoh, Sol. for Respondent. Ain agreed statement of facts was filed admitting that “C. L. M. Exhibit A,” referred to in the answer, is the original bill mentioned therein as passed by the General Assembly of Maryland, and that “O. L. M. Exhibit B,” referred to in the answer, is the'enrolled copy of said bill so passed, and ¡presented to the Governor of the State for his signature, and that these exhibits should be used in the Circuit Court and in this Court, for the purpose of reviewing the writing and punctuation, and for any purpose for which they would be admissible if regularly offered and proved, but the plaintiffs reserved the right to object to their admissibility as evidence for any purpose. The testimony of Carville D. Benson, a member of the House of Delegates of Maryland at the January Session of 1910, when thfe bill referred to was passed, and who was thoroughly familiar with the method and routine of enacting laws, and with the history of the passage of that particular bill, was also taken, and he exjilained at length every step in its passage, in support of the averments of the answer relating thereto.

The plaintiffs objected to the introduction of Exhibits “C. L. M. A.” and “O. L. M. B.” and to all the evidence of Carville D. Benson, and these objections being overruled, they excepted to these rulings, and the Court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the bill and this ' appeal is from that decree. The record thus raises the question both of the validity and interpretation of Chapter 52 of the Acts of 1910, relating to mechanics’ liens. The appellants contend that the act is valid, and that by its provisions a lien is given in Baltimore City as well as in the counties of the State, for the payment of debts both for labor and material. The appellee contends that under the true interpretation of the ²⁴⁷ act, the lien for material debts is confined to the counties, and does not exist in Baltimore City, and also suggests, rather than contends, that the act is signed and printed in the published volume of laws of 1910 differs from the act as it actually passed the General Assembly, and is therefore not a valid act at all.

The Circuit Court held the act to be valid and sustained the interpretation placed upon it by the appellee. The most satisfactory way to determine what was the situation after the passage of Chapter 52 of 1910, is to ascertain what was the situation immediately preceding its passage. At that time section 1 of Article 63 of the Code of Public General Laws, title “Tlechanies,” was as follows: “Every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt or improved to the extent of one-fourth its value in Baltimore City and in any of the counties shall be subject to a lien for the payment of all debts contracted for work done for or about the same: and in the counties, except Baltimore county, every such building shall also be subject to a lien for the payment of all debts contracted for materials furnished for or about the same. In Baltimore county nothing in this article except as provided in section 20, shall entitle any person, firm or corporation to the benefit of such lien upon any such building for materials furnished for or about the same, unless the contract for furnishing such material shall have been made directly with the owner of such building or his agent.

This section shall not affect or impair liens existing in Baltimore county on April 11th, 1902, under pre-existing law.” It is clear, beyond question, that under that section, the existing situation up to that point of time was that in Baltimore City there was no lien except for luor'k donej that in Baltimore county there was a