804; 19 Am. St. Rep. 714); Jefferson Water-Supply Co. v. Riter, 138 Ind. 170 (37 N. E. Rep. 652). But, after a building has been accepted, repairs made thereon, will not revive a lien for labor performed upon or materials furnished to be used in the structure prior to such acceptance. Berry v. Turner, 45 Wis. 105; Dunn v. McKee, 5 Sneed, 657. In Conlee v. Clark, 14 Ind. App. 205 (42 N. E. Rep. 762; 56 Am. St. Rep. 298), the appellate court of Indiana reached a different conclusion, which is much weakened, however, by the fact that two of the judges dissented from the opinion announced by the majority. The latter rule also prevails in California. McIntire v. Trautner, 63 Col. 429."

Sec. 555. Lien statement-Allegations as to ownership of property. Where the statement should contain the name of the owner, if known to the claimant, a failure to give his Christian name, where the statement alleges that it was unknown to the claimant, does not render it insufficient. Mont. Comp. Laws 1887, §§ 1371, 1372, 1373, construed and applied. Richards v. Lewisohn, 19 Mont. 128 (47 Pac. Rep. 645). Under S. Dak. Comp. Laws, § 5476, a mechanic's lien is valid although the notice of lien does not state the name of the owner of the land against which the lien is filed. Red River Lum. Co. v. Friel, 7 N. Dak. 46 (73 N. W. Rep. 203).

Sec. 556. Lien statement-Description of premises. The validity of a lien statement is not affected by the fact that it does not cover as much of the property of the owner as it might cover. Culmer v. Clift, 14 Utah 286 (47 Pac. Rep. 85). Where the whole of a building for which a claimant has furnished labor and material does not stand upon the real estate described in his statement, his claim for a lien is limited to the labor and materials furnished to that portion of the building which stands upon the described premises. Western Cornice Mfg. Works v. Leavenworth, 52 Neb. 418 (72 N. W. Rep. 592). As between the landowner and the lien claimant, any description which will enable a party familiar with the locality to identify the property with reasonable certainty, is suffi cient. Dodge v. Hall, 168 Mass. 435 (47 N. E. Rep. 110); Howe v. Smith, 6 N. Dak. 432 (71 N. W. Rep. 552). See

opinion for particular description held sufficient. The last case is followed in Red River Lum. Co. v. Friel, 7 N. Dak. 46 (73 N. W. Rep. 203). A lien statement should describe the premises upon which a lien is sought and such description is sufficient if it renders the location of the property susceptible of ready ascertainment by the aid of extrinsic evidence. It is held that a description of property as the "Bartlett & Downing block, Kearney, Buffalo county, Nebraska," is a sufficient description when there are no rights of other parties to be affected by the lien. Drexel v. Richards, 50 Neb. 509 (70 N. W. Rep. 23). A former opinion in the same case holds such a description insufficient as against third persons, see Drexel v. Richards, 48 Neb. 732 (67 N. W. Rep. 742). Construing S. Dak. Comp. Laws, § 5470, requiring a lien claimant to file a statement "containing the correct description of the property to be charged with said lien," and § 5485, giving a lien against a railroad to a person aiding in its construction, it is held that the "property to be charged" with a lien claimed by a subcontractor for labor performed on one section of a railroad is the entire road and not merely one section, and a description which does not embrace the entire road is insufficient. Adams v. Grand Island & W. C. R. Co.. 10 S. Dak. 239 (72 N. W. Rep. 577).

Sec. 557. Lien statement-Statement of contract and account. Applying Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1187, which requires the lien claim of a material man to contain "a statement of his demand after deducting all just credits and off sets," it is held that the law requires a true statement and that a materially false statement as to the value of materials furnished renders the notice fatally defective and the right to a lien is lost. Santa Monica Lum. & Mill Co. v. Hege, 119 Cal. 376 (51 Pac. Rep. 555). Construing and applying Mo. Rev. Stat. 1889, § 6709, requiring the lien statement to contain " a just and true account" of the demand claimed as a lien, a statement giving the items and prices charged, which discloses that they were furnished between certain specified dates, the last of which is within the time given for filing a lien, is sufficient without giving the date each item was furnished. Mitchell Planing-Mill Co. v. Allison, 138 Mo.

50 (40 S. W. Rep. 118; 60 Am. St. Rep. 544). Applying Ill. Rev. Stat. 1891, ch. 82, § 4, requiring a contractor's lien statement to set forth "a just and true statement or account or demand due him, after allowing all credits, setting forth the times when such material was furnished or labor performed," it is held that a lien statement by one who had contracted to furnish the materials and perform the carpenter work on several buildings as a whole, for a lumping sum, need not specify the separate items of work or material, or the particular dates upon which each was furnished, or the price, and the dates are sufficiently given by stating the period during which the contract was executed. Nor is a different construction of the statute required by the fact that in such a case the contractor was prevented from fully performing his contract on account of the owner's fault, and was only entitled to recover a proportionate part of the contract price. Moore v. Parish, 163 Ill. 93 (45 N. E. Rep. 573). In support of the first proposition the court cites, Phil. Mech. Liens, § 352; 2 Jones, Liens, § 418; Lumber Co. v. Newton, 72 Ia. 90 (33 N. W. Rep. 377); Davis v. Hines, 6 O. St. 473; Thomas v. Huesman, 100: St. 152; Baptist Church v. Trout, 28 Pa. St. 153; Lee v. Burke, 66 Pa. St. 336; Hilliker v. Francisco, 65 Mo. 598; Wilson v. Merryman, 48 Md. 328; Wescott v. Bunker, 83 Me. 499 (22 Atl. Rep. 388); Doolittle v. Plenz, 16 Neb. 153 (20 N. W. Rep. 116). Applying Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 82, § 4, it is held that where a contract is entire for all the brick and stone work of a building, the statement need not specify the time during which each particular kind of mason work was done, but where a distinct price was fixed for each kind of mason work, the statement must show the amount of each particular kind of mason work done. Ehdin v. Murphy, 170 Ill. 399 (48 N. E. Rep. 956). Particular statement of account and contract held sufficient under Ill. Rev. Stat., 1889, ch. 82, § 4. Grace v. Oakland Bldg. Ass'n, 166 Ill. 637 (46 N. E. Rep. 1102). Where a lien claimant's contract was to furnish a certain group of articles for a certain price, a statement reciting those articles and then stating that price as the charge therefor, is sufficient. Mitchell Planing-Mill Co. v. Allison, 138 Mo. 50 (40 S. W. Rep. 118; 60 Am. St. Rep. 544).

Sec. 558. Lien statement Mistakes · Amendments. The mistake of a lien claimant in including in his account items for which no lien can be claimed, does not affect his lien as to proper items where they can be separated from the improper ones, Stokes v. Green, 10 S. Dak. 286 (73 N. W. Rep. 100); but where lienable and nonlienable items are so confused in a statement that they cannot be separated it is void in toto. Boyle v. Mountain Key Min. Co., N. M. (50 Pac. Rep. 347). See Ballards' Law Real Prop., Vol. V, § 533. Under the statute of New Jersey, a lien claim may be amended in any particular which does not enlarge the claim either in the amount of the debt, in the estate to be charged or in the persons to be affected, even though the time for filing a new claim has expired, provided judgment has not been entered on the claim. If the bill of particulars annexed to a lien claim is so defective that it would not warrant a judgment to enforce the lien, but does not contain any willful or fraudulent misstatements of the matters directed by the act to be inserted therein, it may be amended and made perfect under the statute. American Brick & Tile Co. v. Drinkhouse, 59 N. J. L. 462 (36 Atl. Rep. 1034).

The veri

Sec. 559. Lien statement-Verification. fication may be made by an agent of the claimant. Red River Lum. Co. v. Friel, 7 N. Dak. 46 (73 N. W. Rep. 203). Under Utah Laws 1890, p. 26, § 10, the verification may be made by the claimant's attorney. Culmer v. Clift, 14 Utah 286 (47 Pac. Rep. 85). A claimant's affidavit that the statement is true to the best of his knowledge and belief is held sufficient in Illinois, Grace v. Oakland Bldg. Ass'n, 166 Ill. 637 (46 N. E. Rep. 1102); but where the verification specifies certain particulars in which the lien statement is true. and does not contain a general allegation of the truth of the whole statement, it is insufficient if such specifications do not include all the essential elements of the lien statement. Starr & C. Ann. Ill. Stat., Vol. 3, pp. 819, 822, §§ 4, 28, construed and applied. Orr & Lockett H. Co. v. Russell, 169 Ill. 100 (48 N. E. Rep. 444; 61 Am. St. Rep. 151). Following, McDonald v. Rosengarten, 134 Ill. 126 (25 N. E. Rep. 429).

Sec. 560. Enforcement of lien-Complaint. Where the complaint shows the furnishing of such materials and labor as entitle the plaintiff to a lien, it is not necessary for it to allege specifically what was constructed. Parker Land & Imp. Co. v. Reddick, 18 Ind. App. 616 (47 N. E. Rep. 848). A complaint to foreclose a mechanic's lien on several mining claims, is insufficient where it includes several distinct claims, tracts and lots of land, all of which are noncontiguous, where it does not designate the particular property on which the material for which the lien is claimed was used. Big Blackfoot Mill. Co. v. Blue Bird Min. Co., 19 Mont. 454 (48 Pac. Rep. 778). A complaint to enforce a lien for materials furnished, which does not allege that they were furnished under a continuing contract, is sufficient to enforce a lien for items furnished within the period allowed for filing a lien statement, Indiana Mut. Bldg. & L. Ass'n v. Paxton, 18 Ind. App. 304 (47 N. E. Rep. 1082). Where it appears that claims designed to be covered by two separate counts in the same declaration are identical, there is no merger of a lien claim with the nonlien claim. Me. Rev. Stat., ch. 91, § 42, applied, Laughlin v. Reed, 89 Me, 226 (36 Atl. Rep. 131). A com. plaint must affirmatively show that the notice filed by the lien claimant contained all the essential provisions required by the statute (Hill's Ann. Or. Laws, § 3673). It is held sufficient to aver that the claimant filed a notice "in pursuance of the statute in such cases made and provided." Smith v. Wilkins,

Or. (48 Pac. Rep. 708). Particular complaint held sufficient to comply with the rule requiring the complaint to affirmatively show that the notice of the lien claim was filed in the proper form. Matthiesen v. Arata, 32 Or. 342 (50 Pac. Rep. 1015). Mills' Ann. Colo. Stat., § 2894, applied-fore. closure of several liens by one person as assignee-sufficiency of allegations as to service of notice and filing of statement. Rialto Mining & Milling Co. v. Lowell, 23 Colo. 253 (47 Pac. Rep. 263).

The con

Sec. 561. Enforcement of lien-Parties. tractor is not a necessary party to an action to enforce a subcontractor's lien where no personal judgment is sought against such contractor. Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Delahunt, Or.