Shacks v. Ford

²⁸⁸ Briscoe, J., delivered, the opinion, of the Court. The bill in this case is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, in equity, to enforce an alleged mechanics; lien, for materials-furnished and work done, under a contract between the parties, to furnish and install a hot water heating plant at four stores and an apartment house on a lot of ground owned by the defendants, known as Ho. 33%, 35, 37 and 37% West street, Annapolis, for the contract price of eleven hundred and eighty-two dollars. The contract for the installation of “the hot water heating' plant” is dated October 10th, 1913, and the plant was installed and the work completed on -the 25th of January, 1914. It is admitted, that the sum of $554.44 has been paid upon the contract, leaving a balance due of $627.56, with interest thereon, for which the plaintiff claims a lien, against the buildings and ground set out in the lien claim filed with the bill, under sections 1 and 2 of Article 63 of the Code,, titled Mechanics’ Lien.

By section 1 of Article 63 of the Code, it is. provided that: every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt, or improved to the extent of one-fourth of 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 by section 2, of the same Article, it is further provided, that in all cases in which a building shall be commenced and not finished, the lien shall attach thereto to the extent of the work done or materials furnished. It is clearly established that a mechanics’'lien is the creation of statute and to maintain and enforce it, the requirements of the statute must be substantially complied with. Treusch v. Shryock, 55 Md. 330 ; Wilson v. Simon, 91 Md. 6 ; Long v. Albert, 116 Md. 114 ; Carroll v. Waters, 108 Md. 420 . ²⁸⁹ It is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to a lion, under section 2 of Article 63 of the Code, because according to the uncontradicted proof the building against which the lien is claimed, was finished and completed on or about August 1st, 1913, and the contract for the installing of the heating plant, was not made until October 10th, 1913.

The witness Bean, testified on behalf of the plaintiff, that the building was completed on August 13th, 1913, and the contract was completed on that day and a settlement had between the parties. He further testified, that it was not the intention of the owners to put in a heating plant, under the original contract, but the building was to he heated by stoves and chimneys were put in by the contractor for this purpose. The undisputed testimony upon the part of the defendants, is to the effect that the heating plant, was not determined upon, until two months after the completion of the building, and then, the owners, decided