MECHANICS' LIEN. 2137

An. Code, sec. 1. 1904, sec. 1. 1888, sec. 1. 1838, ch. 205, sec. 1. 1845, ch. 176, sec. 3.
1898, ch. 502. 1902, ch. 432. 1910, ch. 52 (p. 564).

1. 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 con-
tracted 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 con-
tracted for materials furnished for or about the same.1

When a lien exists.

Material man's right to the lien is not affected by whether owner has money in
his hands due builder, or whether former has performed his contract with latter.
Treusch v. Shryock, 51 Md. 173.

It is no defense to mechanics' lien claim that the materials were furnished on
personal credit of contractor, or that there was no contract between material man
and owner. Agency. Blake v. Pitcher, 46 Md. 465; Sodini v. Winter, 32 Md. 134.

Before owner can be made responsible for materials furnished contractor, an
active and subsisting contract must be established between owner and contractor.
Greenway v. Turner, 4 Md. 304.

A sub-contractor who does the work in the sense of giving it direction and being
responsible for its execution is entitled to lien, and it makes no difference that work
was not done on premises erected. Evans Co. v. International Trust Co., 101 Md. 213.

This section held inapplicable because repairs did not amount to one-fourth of
value of building. A range, furnace, heaters, registers, etc., for heating a dwelling,
are within contemplation of this section. Stebbins v. Culbreth, 86 Md, 657. See also
Schaper v. Bibb, 71 Md. 150; Weber v. Weatherby, 34 Md. 659.

Where materials are furnished on a contract with one partner and used by both
partners in construction of building, they being owners as well as builders, the lien
can be enforced against the other partner and his assignee. Real Estate Co. v.
Phillips, 90 Md. 528.

A material man's lien will attach although owner of lots upon which houses are
built has only an equitable interest. The fact that lien is filed against a lesser interest
than it might have been does not destroy lien. Goldheim v. Clark, 68 Md. 504.

Fact that part of builder's compensation is to be one of houses built does not
affect fastening of lien. McLaughlin v. Reinhart, 54 Md. 78.

Lands or buildings belonging to the state (such as a building being erected for
Springfield state hospital) are not subject to mechanics' liens; neither secs. 13, 20
nor 41 affect this conclusion. In re Fowble, 213 Fed. 676.

Where the cost of a heating plant is not one-fourth of value of building in which
it is installed, there can be no lien under this section. Shacks v. Ford, 128 Md. 288.

When lienable and non-lienable items are included in one entire contract for a
lump sum, there being no apportionment between them, lien cannot be enforced.
The fact, however, that in connection with operation of a steam shovel coal, oil,
depreciation and profit were included in lump price, does not defeat right to lien
(there being no lien in Baltimore city for materials). Cases reviewed. Gill v. Mullan,
140 Md. 5.

1 Art. 63, sec. 1, as repealed and re-enacted by act of 1910, ch. 52 (p. 563), appears as
follows in the official acts: " 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 the 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." The case of Dunn v. Brager, 116 Md. 244, is, however, authority
for the above codification of the act of 1910.

Act of 1898, ch. 502, repealed secs. 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 36 and 42
of this article, so far as these sections relate to Baltimore city, and re-enacted them with
amendments limiting the right of lien in Baltimore city to mechanics and workmen for
unpaid work and labor and putting an end as to Baltimore city to the lien, in favor of
material men—see notes to sec. 1. The pre-existing law was not changed by act of 1898
as to the counties.