Gault v. Wittman

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The object of this suit is to enforce a lien under the 61st Article of the Code, for materials furnished by the appellant ³⁶ for a building in Baltimore City. The lien claim, was filed in the proper office within the time prescribed by the Code, and described the house as located “ on the South side of Eayette street a few doors West of Gilmor street,” * * * * “.and being the Westernmost one of three new uniform houses lying between said street and the alley next thereto on the West, which said house is on the South West corner of said street and said alley.” Afterwards, and after the time had expired within which the appellant was entitled to file a claim of lien, he filed of record an amended lien for the same claim, setting forth that the previous location of the house was incorrect, and stating its true location to be “ on the South East corner of Lexington street and an alley which is called Vincent alley.” The effort of the appellant is to assert his lien against the property described in the amended claim, and the question presented is whether such an amendment comes within the -41st section of the 61st Article of the Code, which provides that “ this article shall be construed and have the same effect as laws which give general jurisdiction, or are remedial in their nature, and such amendments shall from time to time and at any time be made in the proceedings, commencing with the claim or lien to be filed and extending to all subsequent proceedings, as may be necessary and proper; Provided that the amount of the claim or lien filed, shall not in any case be enlarged.” This privilege of amendment-is very large, and it is the evident intent of the Legislature that it shall be liberally construed, but it has some limits. In Hess and Reid vs. Poultney and Brown, 10 Md., 257 , the Court held that the requirements of the law- must be substantially complied with.

By the 19th section, it is made