"Lot 388

where the correct description of the real estate was in the town of Kearney, Nebraska." See opinion for collation of particular cases as to sufficiency of description in lien statements. Drexel v. Richards, 48 Neb. 732 (67 N. W. Rep. 742). Under a statute (3 Starr & C. Ann. Ill. Stat., p. 819, § 4) requiring the statement to contain "a correct description of the property to be charged with the lien," and § 28 of the same statute which provides that the lien cannot be enforced "as against or to the prejudice of any other creditor or incumbrancer or purchaser," except the provisions of section 4 be complied with, it was held that where such statement described the land as lots 10 and 11 in a certain block, and the true description was lots 10 and 11, and the south 7 feet of lot 7, in such block it was sufficient as against a subsequent purchaser. Springer v. Kroeschell, 161 Ill. 358 (43 N. E. Rep. 1084). Citing, Steam Mills Co. v. Kremer, 94 Cal. 205 (29 Pac. Rep. 633). Construing Iowa Acts 16th Gen. Assem., ch. 100, § 6, requiring a lien claimant to file a statement within a specified time containing “a correct description of the property to be charged," and providing that his failure to do so " shall not defeat the lien, except as against purchasers or incumbrances in good faith without notice, whose rights accrued after the thirty or ninety days, as the case may be, and before any claim for the lien was filed," it is held that a description of the property by refer ence to blocks and lots as marked on a plat which has been previously vacated will sustain a lien upon the grounds formerly constituting such blocks and lots, but it will not embrace the lands occupied for streets and alleys, and is no notice of any lien claim upon such. Chicago Lum. Co. v. Des Moines Driv. Park, 97 Ia. 25 (65 N. W. Rep. 1017). Where the land described belongs to the lien debtor, the fact that the description includes a tract of land exceeding the statutory limit does not vitiate the lien, but the court may carve out of such a tract a tract within such limit, and adjudge the lien to be upon the same. Minn. Gen. Stat., 1894, § 6237, applied, Buck, J., dissenting. Evans v. Sanford, 65 Minn. 271 (68 N. W. Rep. 21). A subcontractor's lien statement filed under Neb. Comp. Stat., 1895, ch. 54, § 2, must contain a description of the land against which the lien is sought to be enforced.

Drexel v. Richards, 48 Neb. 782 (67 N. W. Rep. 742). Under Hill's Ore. Laws, § 3673, a description of lots upon which a building is situated as being in an addition which does not exist does not invalidate the statement, if from the remainder of the description a party familiar with the locality can identify the premises. Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Ore. 150 (44 Pac. Rep. 390).

Sec. 531. Lien statement-Statement of the contract and account. A lien statement for materials sufficiently states the terms of the contract under which they were furnished where it is alleged that the materials were to be delivered in such quantities as may be directed during the progress of the construction of the building, and that the claimant "was to be paid thereafter therefor, on demand of payment as to each delivery of any quantity on said property by him, the reasonable market value thereof." Snell v. Payne, 115 Cal. 218 (46 Pac. Rep. 1069). A lien claim for materials alleged to have been furnished under a contract with the claimant "to furnish the lumber, sash and doors, etc.," for a certain building was held sufficiently specific. Bolster v. Stocks, 13 Wash St. 460 (43 Pac. Rep. 534). Where materials are furnished under a contract with the owner, a statute requiring the lien statement to give the name of the person to whom they were furnished, is complied with by giving the name of the owner as such person, although the materials were actually ordered and received by his agent. Allen v. Elwert, 29 Ore. 428 (44 Pac. Rep. 823). Neb. Comp. Stat., ch. 54, § 3, applied-filing copy of written contract. Specht v. Stevens, 46 Neb. 874 (65 N. W. Rep. 879). A notice which states that the claimant's contract was to furnish the hardware and other like material" for a building will be construed to mean all the hardware for the building, and is sufficiently definite; but a claim for furnishing certain goods, wares, and merchandise, being iron, iron work, galvanized iron, nails, paints, glass, and other building material is too indefinite. Bolster v. Stocks, 13 Wash. St. 460 (43 Pac. Rep. 532). A failure to itemize credits will not vitiate the statement where it contains an allegation of the amount due after their deduction. Hayes v. Hammond, 162 Ill. 133 (44 N. E. Rep. 422).

A statute which relieves a claimant who has taken a note for the amount due him from filing an itemized statement of his account is not mandatory, and he may file such statement, if he so desires, instead of the note. Higley v. Ringle, 57 Kan. 222 (45 Pac. Rep. 619). A lien statement which gives simply the contract price, the value of the work done up to the abandonment by the owners, and the amount paid, is not in compliance with a statute which requires that the statement shall include the items of the amount claimed as nearly as practicable. Nixon v. Cydon Lodge No. 5, K. of P., 56 Kan. 298 (43 Pac. Rep. 236). The dates upon which labor and materials were furnished are sufficiently given by a statement showing that they were furnished between given dates. Ittner v. Hughes, 133 Mo. 679 (34 S. W Rep. 1110). A statement which recites that "said labor was performed and materials furnished between September 18, 1890, and October 31, 1890," sufficiently complies with a statute (3 Starr & C. Ann. Ill. Stat., p. 819, § 4) requiring the filing of a statement "setting forth the time when such material was furnished or labor performed." Springer v. Kroeschell, 161 Ill. 358 (43 N. E. Rep. 1084). A lien statement dated Sept. 4, 1892, for materials furnished during the months of April, May, June and July, was held sufficient, it being presumed that the months. designated were of the year 1892. Blanchard v. Fried, 162 Ill. 462 (44 N. E. Rep. 880). There is nothing in the statutes of Colorado which requires a lien statement for materials to show either the date the first or last material was furnished.

Mouat Lumber & Inv.

(42 Pac. Rep. 1040).

claim is for work and

Where it is made to appear that the materials furnished between certain dates under a continuous contract, a claim for extras need not specify the exact days upon which they were furnished. Hayes v. Hammond, 162 Ill. 133 (44 N. E. Rep. 422).

Sec. 532. Lien statement-Mistakes and inaccuracies. Mere clerical errors will not invalidate a lien. Snell v. Payne, 115 Cal. 218 (46 Pac. Rep. 1069). An innocent mistake made by a lien claimant in the computation of the amount due him will not invalidate his lien claim. Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Ore. 150 (44 Pac. Rep.

390). Although a statute (Mich. Laws 1885, Act No. 216) requires the claimant to file a "just and true statement or account of the demand due him," his lien will not be defeated by his claiming too much in his statement, if the claim for the excess is the result of an honest mistake. Grant, J., dissenting. Scheibner v. Cohnen, 108 Mich. 165 (65 N. W. Rep. 760). To the same effect is the case of Snell v. Payne, 115 Cal. 218 (46 Pac. Rep. 1069). Including in the statement, by mistake, items which were not furnished and which were lienable in their nature, no fraud appearing, will not vitiate the lien for materials actually furnished. Bolster v. Stocks, 13 Wash. St. 460 (43 Pac. Rep. 534). False allegations in the statement as to the completion of the work according to the contract will not forfeit the claimant's right to a lien where they are shown to have been made unintentionally, and the work was completed by the owner at the claimant's expense. N. Y. Laws, 1885, ch. 342, construed. Ringle v. Wallis Iron Works, 149 N. Y. 439 (44 N. E. Rep. 175). Where a contract to furnish specified materials is changed so that cheaper materials are used, the failure of a lien statement therefor to make any deduction in the contract price, being unintentional and without fraud on the part of the claimant, does not render it defective. 2 Hill's Or. Laws, § 3673, applied. Allen v. Elwert, 29 Ore. 428 (44 Pac. Rep. 823).

Sec. 533. Lien statement-Effect of including nonlienable items. The fact that the statement includes items for which no lien can be claimed does not affect its validity where the account is itemized in such a manner that the improper items can be easily separated. Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Ore. 150 (44 Pac. Rep. 390); Allen v. Elwert, 29 Ore. 428 (44 Pac. Rep. 823); Citing, Dalles Lumber & Manufg Co. v. Wasco Woolen Manuf'g Co., 3 Or. 527; Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Or. 529 (16 Pac, Rep. 407); Williams v. Coal Co., 25 Or. 426 (36 Pac. Rep. 159; 42 Am. St. Rep. 799); Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Or. 150 (44 Pac. Rep. 390); Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 Mo. 271; Nelson v. Withrow, 14 Mo. App. 270; Johnson v. Building Co., 23 Mo. App. 546; Lumber Co. v. Strimple, 33 Mo. App. 154. To the same effect is the case of Ittner v. Hughes, 133 Mo.

679 (34 S. W. Rep. 1110). But where lienable and nonlienable articles are included in one statement for a specific sum, or are made the basis of a lumping charge, so that it cannot be perceived, from the contract or account, what proportion is chargeable to each, the benefit of the mechanic's lien law is lost. Allen v. Elwert, 29 Ore. 428 (44 Pac. Rep. 823).

Where

Sec. 534. Lien statement-Verification. the statute (Ala. Code, § 3022) requires the statement to be verified, a statement without the necessary verification is ineffectual to create a lien. McConnell v. Meridian Sash & Blind Factory, 112 Ala. 582 (20 So. Rep. 929). The verification need not restate the facts upon which the claim for lien is based. Hayes v. Hammond, 162 Ill. 133 (44 N. E. Rep. 422).

Sec. 535. Enforcement of lien-Complaint. A slight misnomer of the contractor's firm name in a complaint to enforce a lien for materials will not defeat the lien unless it is clearly manifest that the parties have been misled to their injury thereby. Osborn v. Logus, Ore. (42 Pac. Rep. 997). The complaint need not allege as a conclusion. that the materials furnished were such as are lienable articles, or of a kind or character to be used in the construction of the building in controversy. Bolster v. Stocks, 13 Wash. St. 460 (43 Pac. Rep. 534). A complaint to enforce a lien under a statute (Mich. Pub. Acts 1893, Act. 199, § 1) giving a lien for labor or material under a contract made with "the owner, part owner or lessee of any interest in real estate," which fails to allege that the defendant was either owner, part owner or lessee of the land upon which the lien is sought to be enforced, or to set out that the defendant had any interest therein whatever, is fatally defective. Knapp Electrical Works v. Mecosta Electric Co., 110 Mich 517 (68 N. W. Rep. 245). A complaint to enforce a material man's lien was held sufficient which alleged the purchase by contractors of "certain building materials, consisting of lumber, dimension stuff, shingles, doors, sash, glass, and plastering lath," which were delivered at the "building for the purpose of being used in the erection