record need not be signed or subscribed by the parties; that if it does not disclose the existence of plans and specifications they need not be filed therewith; and a memorandum which stated the size of the lot and that a frame building already thereon was to be raised, repaired and additions made thereto, and converted into flats for the purpose of being used as tenements, was sufficiently specific. Joost v. Sullivan, 111 Cal. 286 (43 Pac. Rep. 896).

Sec. 526. Filing of lien statement. Where the service of notice of a claim for a lien within a specified time is required by the statute, such service is necessary to the creation of the lien no matter what knowledge of the claim the owner may have. Steele v. McBurney, 96 Ia. 449 (65 N. W. Rep. 332). Under Florida Act 1885, ch. 3611, no notice of a lien claim is required to be filed. Clarkson v. Louderback, 36 Fla. 660 (19 So. Rep. 887). Mich. Pub. Acts 1891, No. 179, § 4, construed and applied-contractor's duty to furnish owner statement of laborers and materials. Sterner v. Haas, 108 Mich. 488 (66 N. W. Rep. 348); Martin v. Warren, 109 Mich. 584 (67 N. W. Rep. 897). The statement must contain all that the law requires it to contain but it need not contain anything more. Mouat Lumber & Inv. Co. v. Freeman, Colo. App. (42 Pac. Rep. 1040). Where the statement contain the things required by the statute the fact that it asks for a lien not given by the statute does not invalidate it. Epeneter v. Montgomery Co., 98 Ia. 159 (67 N. W. Rep. 93). The right to a lien is not defeated by the failure of the claimant to name as owner in his lien statement a wife who held with her husband a community interest in the property, it not appearing that the claimant knew of her interest, where she is made a party to the action to foreclose the lien. Bolster v. Stocks, 13 Wash. St. 460 (43 Pac. Rep. 534). Under the statute of Oregon it is not enough to allege the furnishing of work or materials under a contract with a certain person, but the name of the person to whom they were furnished must be given. Leick v. Beers, Ore. (43 Pac. Rep. 658). A statement made in good faith is not rendered insufficient to sustain a claim for lien because of the claimant's failure to recover the full amount demanded. Hayes v. Hammond, 162

Ill. 133 (44 N. E. Rep. 422). The fact that the statement, after specifying the sum which is due the claimant, declares that the same is due in gold coin of the United States does not vitiate the statement. Neihaus v. Morgan, Cal. (45 Pac. Rep. 255). In Ohio it is held that a contractor who has taken notes, not as payment, but in settlement of a balance due him, may enforce a lien to secure their payment after he has assigned them to another, as the statute (Ohio Rev. Stat., §3185) prescribing the contents of the lien statement does not require that the amount due the claimant be shown or who owns any notes given him in settlement thereof. Standard Oil Co. v. Sowden, 55 O. St. 332 (45 N. E. Rep. 320).

Sec. 527. Filing of lien statement by subcontractors and material men. Unless the statute so requires a lien statement for materials need not allege that the materials furnished were actually used in the building. Allen v. Elwert, 29 Ore. 428 (44 Pac. Rep. 823). Cal. Code, Civ. Pro., § 1187, which requires a lien statement to contain the claimant's demand after deducting all just credits and offsets," does not require a statement by one claiming a lien for materials furnished and used in a building to state that they were furnished "to be used" in such building. Neihaus v. Morgan, Cal. (45 Pac. Rep. 255). Under Iowa Acts 16th Gen. Assem., ch. 100, §§ 6, 7, a subcontractor is required, within 30 days after the last material or work is furnished, to file his lien statement and serve personal notice of such filing upon the owner, in order to preserve his lien as against payments by the owner to other lienholders. But it is held in applying this statute that where the owner knows or has opportunity of knowing that liens will be claimed by subcontractors he cannot legally make final payment to the contractor until the expiration of the thirty days allowed them by statute within which to file and serve notice of their claims. Merritt v. Hopkins, 96 Ia. 652 (65 N. W. Rep. 1015). Construing and applying Hill's Ann. Ore. Laws, § 3669, which provides that any person furnishing material to be used in the construction, alteration, etc., of any building, etc., shall have a lien upon the same for labor done or material furnished at the instance of the owner of the building or his agent; "and

every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder or other person having charge of the construction, alteration or repair, in whole or in any part, of any building or other improvement as aforesaid, shall be held to be the agent of the owner for the purpose of this act," and § 3673, which provides that a lien claim shall contain a true statement of amount owing to the claimant with the name of the owner, or reputed owner, if known, and also the name of the person by whom he was employed, or to whom he furnished the materials, it is held that a lien claim for materials furnished to a contractor need not state the contractual relation existing between the claimant and the landowner. Osborn v. Logus, Ore. (42 Pac. Rep. 997). See opinion for review of conflicting authorities. Where a subcontractor has a right to file his lien statement within sixty days after furnishing the last item of his account, and the contractors abandon their contract without his knowledge and before he has furnished all the materials provided for in his contract, he has the right to file his lien statement within sixty days after the abandonment or doing the last work or furnishing the last item of material before notice of such abandonment. Main Street Hotel Co. v. Horton Hardware Co., 56 Kan. 448 (43 Pac. Rep. 769).

Sec. 528. Lien statement-Time for filing. Under the statute of Oregon a lien claimed for material furnished directly to the owner must be filed within thirty days after the last material is furnished, or after the completion of the building. Inman v. Henderson, 29 Ore. 116 (45 Pac. Rep. 300). Where a statute provides that the lien claim must be filed within a fixed time after the completion of the building is changed so that the lien must be filed within the same time after the date upon which the material or labor was last furnished, it is held that in applying the new statute to those whose rights to have a lien had already accrued before the change, they are entitled to a reasonable time after the new statute takes effect within which to comply with its provisions, which by analogy cannot be extended beyond the statutory limitation. Kan. Laws, 1872, ch. 141, § 3; Laws 1889, ch. 168, § 2, applied. Higley v. Ringle, 57 Kan. 222 (45 Pac. Rep. 619). Where a statute provides that a lien claim must be filed within

a specified time after the completion of the building a statement filed before such completion is premature and is not sufficient to create a lien. Higley v. Ringle, 57 Kan. 222 (45 Pac. Rep. 619). Where the contract for the erection of a building and the plans and specifications thereof provide for the construction of an elevator therein, although a mere convenience, the building is not completed, so as to fix the time within which liens must be filed, until the elevator is finished. Coss v. McDonough, 111 Cal. 662 (44 Pac. Rep. 325). Where the statute provides that a lien statement must be filed within a certain number of days after the completion of the work, the time for filing a lien statement for work done under a contract providing that it should be done to the satisfaction of a certain superintendent, commences to run from the completion of the work and not from its acceptance by such superintendent. Beatty v. Mills, 113 Cal. 312 (45 Pac. Rep. 468). In Indiana it is held by a divided court that where a contractor completes his work and so notifies the owner, but subsequently returns at the request of the owner and performs additional labor for the purpose of correcting a mistake in his work, the time for filing his lien dates from the performance of the last work although it was trifling in amount and no additional charge was made for it. Ind. Rev. Stat. 1894, § 7257, applied. Conlee v. Clark, 14 205 (42 N. E. Rep. 762; 56 Am. St. Rep. 298). contractor furnished apparatus for a building which failed to meet the warranties made for it in his contract, and the parties enter into a new contract under which the contractor is to reperform his contract, which he does, the time for filing the lien statement commences to run from the time of such reperformance. Scheible v. Schickler, 63 Minn. 471 (65 N. W. Rep. 920). Citing, Worthen v. Cleaveland, 129 Mass. 570. For a particular fact case as to when a contract of plumbing will be regarded as completed so as to fix the time for filing a lien, see Miller v. Wilkinson, 167 Mass. 136 (44 N. E. Rep. 1083). When the work under a building contract is substantially done the statutory time for filing the lien begins to run, and it cannot be stayed by a delay in completing the work unless it affirmatively appear that such delay is not unnecessary or unreasonable. Cooley v. Holcomb, 68 Conn. 35 (35

Ind. App.

Where a

Atl. Rep. 765). The time for filing a lien claim for an architect's services begins to run from the performance of the last act required of him by his contract. Bentley v. Adams, 92 Wis. 386 (66 N. W. Rep. 505). The time for filing a lien for work done under a contract cannot be extended by the performance of work on the same job under a new and independent contract. John T. Noye Mfg Co. v. Thread Flouring Mills Co., 110 Mich. 161 (67 N. W. Rep. 1108). After the time given for filing a claim for a lien has expired the right to file such claim can not be revived by a subsequent agreement of the parties so as to affect the right of a mortgagee who is not a party to the transaction. Inman v. Henderson, 29 Ore. 116 (45 Pac. Rep. 300). Citing, Brown v. Moore, 26 Ill. 421 (79 Am. Dec. 383); Kelly v. Kellog, 79 Ill. 477; Central Trust Co. v. Chicago, K. & T. Ry. Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 598.

Sec. 529. Lien statement-Allegation as to ownership of the property. In California the giving of the names of two persons as the owners and as the reputed owners of the premises upon which the lien is claimed is sufficient. Kelly v. Lemberger, Cal. (46 Pac. Rep. 8). Under the Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1187, requiring a lien claim for labor on a mining claim to state "the name of the owner or reputed owner, if known, and also the name of the person by whom he was employed," it is held that a failure to state the name of the employer of the claimant renders the statement fatally defective; but an allegation by the claimant that the work was performed by him as a miner under an agreement with a certain person who is designated as the owner of the claim, is a sufficient compliance with the statute. Ascho v. Fitch, Cal.

(46 Pac. Rep. 298).

Sec. 530. Lien statement-Description of premises. It was held that where a lien claim upon three houses situated upon one lot stated their relative positions thereon and the amount claimed on account of each, that it need not particularly describe the part of the lot on which each house was sitSullivan v. Treen, 13 Wash. St. 261 (43 Pac. Rep. 38). The description as "Bartlett & Downing Block in Kearney, Buffalo county, Nebraska," was held insufficient