Wehr v. Shryock

Miller, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. It is well established that-a mechanic’s lien is purely the creation of statute law, and to maintain and enforce it the requirements of the statute must be substantially complied with. Soldini vs. Winter, 32 Md., 130 ; Hess vs. Poultney, 10 Md., 257 ; Gault vs. Wittman, 34 Md., 35 . In the present case the appellees, who were lumber merchants in the City of Baltimore, on the 12th of June, 1878, filed their claim in the usual form of a mechanic’s lien for the sum of $552.27, against four houses on the east side of Wolfe street and the lots of ground appurtenant thereto,” of which said houses, and lots Joseph C. Merritt and Samuel Merritt are the owners or reputed owners, and John W. Phillips builder and contractor; said claim, of which a bill of particulars is hereto annexed as part hereof, being for materials furnished in and about the erection and construction of said houses, within six months last past, at the request of said John W. Phillips.” Upon its face, therefore, the claim is one clearly falling under sec. 11, Art. 61, of the Code, which provides that if the contract for work or materials is made with any architect or builder, or any other person except the owner or owners of the lot on which the building may be erected, the party doing the work or furnishing the materials shall not be entitled to a lien, unless witin sixty days after furnishing the same, he shall give notice in writing to such owner or owners of his intention to claim such lien.

In sec. 19 of the same Article, it is provided, among other requirements, that the claim shall set forth the name of the claimant, and of the owner or reputed owner of the building, and also of the contractor or architect, or builder where the contract was made by the claimant with such contractor, architect or builder. In cases falling under - these provisions, not only does the statute in express terms, make the giving of this ³³⁷ .notice to the party named as owner or reputed owner, essential to the lien, hut the failure to give it, in substance, as the law provides, has in repeated instances been held fatal to the claim. Hess vs. Poultney, 10 Md., 257 ; Thomas vs. Barker, Ibid., 380. In the case last cited, the lien claim as filed, the scire facias, and the sheriff’s published notice,'described Thomas, as the owner or reputed owner of the house and lot, and Kridler, as the contractor, builder and architect, to whom the materials were furnished by the claimants, and it was held that Thomas must be regarded as the owner, and that the claimants could not recover, because they had not given to him the sixty days’ notice, in substance as required by the lien laws.

In the case now before us, it is conceded no such notice was ever given by the claimants to Joseph C. Merritt and Samuel Merritt, the parties named in the