confirm and validate any deed of the real estate of a married woman, heretofore or hereafter made by her, in which the husband did not join, and may order and compel the husband to execute and deliver all instruments necessary to confirm and validate said deed." Laws 1898, No. 55.

Sec. 524. Virginia. (See Vol. II, § 424; Vol. III, § 492; Vol. IV, § 490; Vol. V. § 504.) An adult married woman may sue in her own name. Laws 1897-98. p. 744. Va. Laws 1893-94, p. 489, applied-husband as a party to an action brought to recover her separate estate. West v. Adams, Va. (27 S. E. Rep. 496).

Sec. 525. West Virginia. (See Vol. II, § 526; Vol. III, § 493; Vol. IV, § 491; Vol. V, § 508.) Where a married woman owns both personal and real estate, the latter cannot be subjected to the payment of her debts until the former is exhausted. Fitzgerald v. Phelps & Bigelow Windmill Co., 42 W. Va. 570 (26 S. E. Rep. 315). The wife, or she and her husband may maintain trespass for damages for both possession and the inheritance, where there is a conveyance of the land to a trustee to permit her to have possession and use of it, though she is vested with only equitable title. Clay v. City of Albans, 43 W. Va. 539 (27 S. E. Rep. 368; 64 Am. St. Rep. 883).

Sec. 526. Wisconsin. (See Vol. II, § 427; Vol. IV, § 492.) A woman's will is not revoked by her subsequent marriage. In re Lyon's Will, 96 Wis. 339 (71 N. W. Rep. 362; 65 Am. St. Rep. 52). She is not liable on her note given as security for her husband, where it has no reference to her separate estate or business. Mueller v. Wiese, 95 Wis. 381 (70 N. W. Rep. 485).

MECHANICS' LIENS.

EPITOME OF CASES.

Sec. 527. Construction of mechanics' lien statutesEffect of change of statute. In determining whether a mechanic's lien attached, the statute should be strictly construed; but after the lien has attached, a liberal construction should be put upon the statute for the purpose of fulfilling its objects. Smalley v. Northwestern Terra-Cotta Co., 113 Mich. 141 (71 N. W. Rep. 466). The first proposition is supported by Glynn v. Zabriskie, 19 R. I. 215 (36 Atl. Rep. 3). A statute materially changing a mechanic's right to have a lien, cannot be applied to contracts entered into before the passage

of the statute. Ill. Laws 1895, p. 228, construed. Andrews & Johnson Co. v. Atwood, 167 Ill. 249 (47 N. E. Rep. 387). See Ballards' Law Real Prop., Vol. V, § 509. The statute will not be applied to contracts made after its passage by second subcontractors, where the subcontractors' contract with the original contractor was made before the passage of the statute. Pfeiffer v. People, 170 Ill. 347 (48 N. E. Rep. 979). A statute (N. J. Act, March 14, 1895) shortening the time within which a lien claim may be filed, is held not to apply to a case where the work for which the lien is claimed was all done at the time of the passage of the statute. Barnaby v. Bradley & Currier Co., 60 N. J. L. 158 (37 Atl. Rep. 764).

Sec. 528.

Estate or property subject to the lien. In South Dakota it is held that a homestead is not subject to a mechanic's lien. S. Dak. Comp. Laws, §§ 2452, 5126, 5127; Laws 1890, ch. 86, construed. Fallihee v. Wittmayer, 9 S. Dak. 479 (70 N. W. Rep. 642). The lands of one upon which a constructed house is moved for a mere temporary resting place, cannot be subjected to a lien for materials previously furnished for its construction. Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1183, 1185, 1192, construed and applied. Fresno Loan & Sav. Bank v. Husted, Cal. (49 Pac. Rep. 195). Where one who furnishes materials for improvements is led to believe that the party to which they are furnished has a title or interest to which a mechanic's lien will attach, and he has not, but obtains it while the contract is being performed, the lien may be enforced against such title. Flate v. Brown, 104 Ia. 154 (73 N. W. Rep. 483; 65 Am. St. Rep. 434).

A

Sec. 529. Public property-Bond of contractor. mechanic's lien cannot be acquired on public property unless the statute creating the lien expressly so provides. Hicks v. Roanoke Brick Co., 94 Va. 741 (27 S. E. Rep. 596). This principle applies to a public school house erected in accordance with public law. Townsend v. Cleveland Fire Proofing Co., 18 Ind. App. 568 (47 N. E. Rep. 707); Whiteside v. School Dist. No. 5, 20 Mont. 44 (49 Pac. Rep. 445). Citing, Hovey v. Town of East Province, 17 R. I. 81 (20 Atl. Rep. 205; 9

L. R. A. 156); Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 (26 Pac. Rep. 646; 23 Am. St. Rep. 451); Fatout v. Commissioners, 102 Ind. 223 (1 N. E. Rep. 389); Portland Lumbering & Manuj'g Co. v. School District No. 1, 13 Or. 283 (10 Pac. Rep. 350); Jordan v. Board of Education, 39 Minn. 299 (39 N. W. Rep. 801). A lien cannot be enforced for materials furnished for the erection of a court house and city hall. Burlington Mfg. Co. v. Board of Court House & City Hall Com'rs, 67 Minn. 327 (69 N. W. Rep. 1091). In Kentucky it is held that the rule prohibiting the assertion of a mechanic's lien against public property does not prevent a subcontractor from asserting a lien on money in the hands of a city or county due the contractor for the erection of improvements. Noonan v. Hastings, Ky. (41 S.W. Rep. 32).

Where a bond is given for the faithful performance of a contract for the erection of a public building, the bondsmen, whose undertaking is for the benefit of the state, and not for material men and laborers, are not liable upon their bond to third parties for labor performed or material furnished. Nor can any new and undefined liability be established in such case by implication in behalf of a mere stranger to the contract, who might become incidentally benefitted by its performance. Montgomery v. Spencer, 15 Utah 495 (50 Pac. Rep. 623). In Indiana it is held that neither an equitable nor a statutory lien can be acquired for materials furnished and used in a public school building; and one furnishing such materials cannot claim the right to be subrogated to the rights of the school commissioners on a bond given to them by the contractor covenanting that he would turn over the building when completed free from liens. Townsend v. Cleveland Fire-Proofing Co., 18 Ind. App. 568 (47 N. E. Rep. 707).

Sec. 530. Extent of property affected by the lien. Mining machinery dumped upon the ground and not erected or used in connection with the operation of the mine, is not subject to a mechanic's lien claimed for improvements made on the mine. Cal. Civ. Code, § 661, construed. Hamilton v. Delhi Min. Co., 118 Cal. 148 (50 Pac. Rep. 378). A lien can only be enforced for material used and labor performed. on the part of a building which stands upon the premises

Western Cornice

(72 N. W. Rep.

lien claim is an

described in the claimant's lien statement. Mfg. Works v. Leavenworth, 52 Neb. 418 592). Where the property described in a ordinary town lot, a finding by the court that "all of such realty is necessary for the convenient use and enjoyment of said building," will be held equivalent to a finding that it was necessary for the "convenient use and occupation" of such building. Ward v. Crane, 118 Cal. 676 (50 Pac. Rep. 839). Citing, Tunis v. Association, 98 Cal. 286 (33 Pac. Rep. 63). Where several persons have interest in an enterprise proportionate to their subscription, agree to pay a contractor the amount of their subscription to a fund for the erection of a building, he may enforce a separate and distinct lien upon the undivided interests in the property of each subscriber for the amount subscribed by him. Ala. Code 1886, § 3018, construed and applied. Hines v. Chicago Bldg. & Mfg. Co., 115 Ala. 637 (22 So. Rep. 160). Under N. J. Gen. Stat., p. 2066, § 15, the proper extent of the curtilage to which a mechanic's lien may attach, is a matter to be determined by a justice of the supreme court. American Brick & Tile Co. v. Drinkhouse, 59 N. J. L. 462 (36 Atl. Rep. 1034). N. H. Pub. Stat., ch. 141, § 11, construed and applied-liens for making brick-extent of property affected. Lavoie v. Burke,

N.

Sec. 531. Extent of property affected by the lienEnforcement against a railroad. The right to a mechanic's lien given by a statute (S. Dak. Comp. Laws, § 5485), against a railroad, should be enforced against the entire road and not merely one section of it. Adams v. Grand Island & W. C. R. Co., 10 S. Dak. 239 (72 N. W. Rep. 577). The court say: "Upon the theory that railroads, by promoting the public welfare, are advantageous to the state as a body politic, and that it is better to suffer mischief peculiar to an individual than an inconvenience which must, of necessity, seriously prejudice the public generally, the view is sustained by the greater number of well-reasoned authorities that no lien can attach to a single section of a railroad. It is well known that the resi dents and freeholders in the vicinity of our railroads have contributed largely to their construction; and it would be unrea

sonable to suppose that the legislature ever intended to enact a law by which a subcontractor or any other person may deprive the public of every advantage which railway facilities afford, by the sale on execution of an unseverable section of the road bed, and a conveyance of an absolute title thereof to the purchaser at a foreclosure sale under a mechanic's lien. As public policy forbids the acquisition of a lien upon a part of the railroad, for work done or materials furnished, a contractor who grades a section only of the road cannot file a lien on that section alone. Applegate v. Ernst, 3 Bush 648 (96 Am. Dec. 272); Cox v. Railroad Co., 44 Cal. 18. In construing the Iowa law of which ours is a copy, the United States supreme court held that the word 'improvement,' in contemplation of this statute, means the entire railroad. Brooks v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 443; Railway Co. v. Wilcox, 122 Ind. 84 (23 N. E. Rep. 506); Chapman Valve Mfg. Co. v. Oconto Water Co., 89 Wis. 264 (60 N. W. Rep. 1004; 46 Am. St. Rep. 830). 'Alien for labor and materials cannot be enforced against that portion or section of a railroad only for which they were furnished. The lien is against the whole road and the whole must be sold' Knapp v. Railway Co.,74 Mo. 374. In the case of Georgia v. Atlantic & G. R. Co., 3 Woods, 434 (Fed. Cas. No. 5,351) the court say: 'It cannot be supposed that the legislature, in authorizing the construction, and in granting it a franchise for its operation and use, ever intended that execution creditors might levy upon parcels of it, and cut it up into sections, and destroy it as a great public thoroughfare. Such a proposition is preposterous. Suppose a mile of road should be levied on and sold; would the purchaser have a right to fence it in, and take up the rails and cross-ties, and plant it and thereby destroy the railroad? Could this be done without contemning the power of the state by which it was created and made a public highway? We think not.' Mr. Jones, in his treatise on the Law of Liens, at page 1619, ably vindicates the doctrine that a railroad is an entirety, and that a lien cannot attach to a section of it'; and, in support of the text numerous authorities are cited."

Sec. 532. Kind of labor or material for which a lien may be claimed. It is held that a lien cannot be claimed by