the Minnesota statutes requiring the register of deeds to affix his seal to all documents requiring his official signature, except certificates indorsed on recorded instruments, a claim sworn to before the register of deeds, whose signature is not authenticated by his official seal, is insufficient to preserve the lien." A claim without any jurat at all is insufficient, even though it has in fact been sworn to.67

DIVISION II. SIGNATURE.

Claim must be Signed.

69

§ 458. The claim should be signed by the claimant, or by some one in his behalf. Failure to sign invalidates the claim.es And the name of a lien claimant at the top of his bill, though made with his own hand, is not a sufficient compliance wth a statutory provision that the claim shall be subscribed by the lien claimant, as well as sworn to, before it is filed for record. A signature by the claimant to the affidavit of verification is a sufficient signing of the claim," though it is undoubtedly the better practice to sign both. Signature may usually be made by agent. Under a statute providing that a claim may be subscribed and sworn to by some one on behalf of the claimant, a claim signed by a third person without authority is sufficient if ratified by the claimant." Bringing suit to foreclose the

70

omission to sign the jurat does not invalidate the lien. Finley v. West, 51 Mo. App. 569. And there is a dictum to the same effect in Jackman v. City of Gloucester, 9 N. E. 740, 143 Mass. 380.

66 Colman v. Goodnow, 29 N. W. 338, 36 Minn. 9.

67 McGillivray v. District Tp. of Barton (Iowa) 65 N. W. 974.

68 Stout's Adm'r v. Golden, 9 W. Va. 231; Hentig v. Sperry, 17 Pac. 42, 38 Kan. 459; Wetenkamp v. Billigh, 27 Ill. App. 585. But the requirement that the claim shall be verified by oath of the claimant, or some other person having knowledge of the facts, does not mean that such verification shall be signed by the claimant, or such other person. Ainslie v. Kohn, 19 Pac. 97, 16 Or. 363.

69 Stratton v. Shoenbar (Me.) 10 Atl. 446.

70 Hicks v. Murray, 43 Cal. 515; Deatherage v. Woods, 14 Pac. 474, 37 Kan. 59; Moore v. McLaughlin, 21 N. Y. Supp. 55, 66 Hun, 133. Contra Mayes v. Ruffners, 8 W. Va. 384.

71 Batchelder v. Hutchinson, 37 N. E. 452, 161 Mass. 462. An objection that a mechanic's lien claim was not made or filed by the claimant should

claim is a ratification.72 Where the statute allows the claim to be signed by the claimant or his agent, a signature by his attorney at

73

law is sufficient, if the claimant either authorizes or ratifies it. A claim signed by an agent need not state the agency.

In Case of Assignment.

76

77

74

§ 459. Where an assignment made before the claim is filed is not recognized as passing title,75 and also where such an assignment is made merely as collateral security, the lien claim should be filed by the assignor, and not by the assignee. Where a material man takes a note for the amount of his claim, with no intent to release his lien, and indorses the same, he retains an interest which entitles him to file a lien in his own name.78

Signature by Corporation.

§ 460. A claim by a corporation, signed for it by its attorney, without having the corporate seal attached, is sufficiently signed; " and conversely a claim which merely has the corporate seal attached, without the name of the corporation written thereto, is not duly signed. Where the name of the corporation is correctly stated in the body of the claim, an error in the signature, which is not misleading, does not vitiate.81

80

be overruled when it appears that the claimant signed the claim, and gave it to another to file, and it was indorsed by the recorder as filed by the claimant. Corbett v. Chambers, 41 Pac. 873, 109 Cal. 178.

72 Donahoo v. Scott, 12 Pa. St. 45.

73 Treusch v. Shryock, 51 Md. 162; Donahoo v. Scott, 12 Pa. St. 45; Heier v. Meisch, 33 Mo. App. 35. In the latter case the signature was, "Ed L. Gottschalk, Attorney for Plaintiff."

74 Missouri Valley Lumber Co. v. Weber, 43 Mo. App. 179.

75 Brown v. Railway Co., 36 Mo. App. 458; McCrea v. Johnson, 37 Pac. 902, 104 Cal. 224.

76 Potvin v. Hotel Co., 37 Pac. 320, 38 Pac. 1002, and 9 Wash. 316.

77 As to assignability of liens, see ante, §§ 9-12.

78 Hill v. Building Co. (S. D.) 60 N. W. 752.

79 Cary-Lombard Lumber Co. v. Fullenwider, 37 N. E. 899, 149 Ill. 629. 80 Wetenkamp v. Billigh, 27 Ill. App. 585.

81 Mississippi Planing Mill v. Presbyterian Church, 54 Mo. 520.

The right

82

Signature by Firm.

§ 461. Where the lien is claimed by co-partners, it is not neces sary that each partner sign the claim. A signature in the firm name is sufficient. Such signature may be made for the firm by one of the co-partners,83 or by a third person, duly authorized by the firm.84 Where the claim read, "We, B., W., and E., co-partners under the name of B., E. & Co.," but was signed by the true name of the firm, B., W. & Co., it was held that the lien was not invalidated.85 Where one member of a firm dies between the accrual of the lien and the filing of the claim, the claim may be signed by the survivor in his own name as surviving partner.

86

DIVISION III. AMENDMENT.

During Time for Filing Claim.

§ 462. Whether a defective claim may be amended, in the ab sence of any express statutory provision on that point, depends somewhat on when the attempt to amend is made. If the amendment is sought before expiration of the time for filing the original claim, it will be allowed. 87 The theory is that filing a void claim does not de

name of the claimant in this case was the "Mississippi Planing-Mill Company of St. Louis," and the signature read, "Mississippi Planing-Mill Company."

In a case in Kansas the claimant was designated in the claim as the "Chicago Lumber Company," and the verification of the same was signed, "Jos. M. Eck, Manager, Claimant." The bill of items which formed a part of the claim designated Eck as manager. Held, that the signing was not so defective as to defeat the lien. Pierce v. Osborn, 19 Pac. 656, 40 Kan. 168.

82 Black's Appeal, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 179; Miller v. Faulk, 47 Mo. 262; Sharon Town Co. v. Morris, 18 Pac. 230, 39 Kan. 377; Smith v. Johnson, 2 MacArthur (D. C.) 481; Williams v. Bradford (N. J. Ch.) 21 Atl. 331.

83 White v. Dumpke, 45 Wis. 454; Miller v. Faulk, 47 Mo. 262; Jones v. Hurst, 67 Mo. 568; Sharon Town Co. v. Morris, 18 Pac. 230, 39 Kan. 377.

84 Williams v. Bradford (N. J. Ch.) 21 Atl. 331;

18 Pac. 230, 39 Kan. 377.

85 Shattuck v. Beardsley, 46 Conn. 386.

Sharon Town Co. v. Morris,

86 Davis v. Church, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 240.

87 Sarles V. Sharlow, 37 N. W. 748, 5 Dak. 100; Gray v. Dunham, 50 Iowa, 170; Dorman v. Crozier, 14 Kan. 227; Williams v. Railway Co., 20 S. W. 631,

89

stroy the right to file a good one, the amended claim being treated, in such case, as a new claim dating from the time of the amendment, and the old claim being ignored. Probably the best way to effect such an amendment is to file an entirely new claim,88 though it may also be done by attaching the amendment to the old lien, and refiling it with the amendment attached. Sometimes other and more questionable methods of amending are tolerated. Thus, in one case, an alteration of the claim by the claimant and a corresponding alteration of the record by the recorder were held not to vitiate the lien, no fraud being intended, and in another case an alteration made by the clerk at the claimant's request was held not void, although irregular in practice. An alteration in an immaterial matter does not affect the lien injuriously.92

91

After Expiration of Time for Filing Claim.

§ 463. After the time for filing the original claim has expired, the power to amend it, in the absence of express statutory authority therefor, is doubtful. In several states the right to amend in such case

112 Mo. 463; South Missouri Lumber Co. v. Wright, 21 S. W. 811, 114 Mo. 326; Hunter v. Truckee Lodge, 14 Nev. 24; Highfield v. Pierce, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 507; Schrader v. Burr, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 620; Mechanics' Mill & Lumber Co. v. Denny Hotel Co. (Wash.) 32 Pac. 1073. There is a dictum to the same effect in McDonald v. Rosengarten, 25 N. E. 429, 134 Ill. 126. There is a New York decision to the effect that the claim of mechanic's lien required to be filed by Laws N. Y. 1885, c. 432, § 4, cannot be amended. It must state the amount, and judgment cannot be rendered for more than the amount claimed. Maurer v. Bliss, 14 Daly (N. Y.) 150.

88 This was the course approved of in the following cases: Gray v. Dunham, 50 Iowa, 170; Williams v. Railway Co., 20 S. W. 631, 112 Mo. 463; South Missouri Lumber Co. v. Wright, 21 S. W. 811, 114 Mo. 326; Highfield v. Pierce, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 507; Mechanics' Mill & Lumber Co. v. Denny Hotel Co. (Wash.) 32 Pac. 1073.

89 Dorman v. Crozier, 14 Kan. 227; McDonald v. Rosengarten, 25 N. E. 429, 134 Ill. 126. In case of amendment, the claim as amended must be reverified. Newman v. Brown, 27 Kan. 117; Sarles v. Sharlow, 37 N. W. 748, 5 Dak. 100. 90 Hunter v. Truckee Lodge, 14 Nev. 24.

91 Sarles v. Sharlow, 37 N. W. 748, 5 Dak. 100.

92 Brown v. Coke Co., 16 Wis. 555; Hunter v. Truckee Lodge, 14 Nev. 24; Fourth Avenue Baptist Church v. Schreiner, 88 Pa. St. 124.

94

93

is unqualifiedly denied, even though no rights of third persons have intervened. Where third parties have in the meantime acquired rights in the property in reliance on the claim as filed, amendment of it to the prejudice of such third parties is, of course, not allowed.95 A claim which is materially defective, and which is not amendable, cannot be made good by proof at the trial.96 But, if the defect is amendable, it may, in Massachusetts, be made good in that way."" After suit to foreclose the lien has begun, the objections to allowing the claim to be amended are still stronger, since there should be a perfect claim on file when the suit begins. Accordingly the power to amend in such cases has been denied in several states." But in other states amendments have been allowed, even pending suit to foreclose the lien." Where the lien has been discharged for failure to sue within 30 days after being notified to do so by the owner, the lien cannot be restored by any amendment of the lien claim.100

Under Direct Statutory Sanction.

98

§ 464. In some states the statutes expressly allow mechanic's lien claims to be amended. Such a statute, although not retrospective, applies to a lien claim filed after its passage, though the work was completed and the lien had attached before that time.101 Under a

93 Dearie v. Martin, 78 Pa. St. 55; Nason Manuf'g Co. v. Trustees of Jefferson Medical College Hospital, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 483; McFarland v. Schultz, 32 Atl. 94, 168 Pa. St. 634; Gault v. Wittman, 34 Md. 35; Lindley v. Cross, 31 Ind. 106; McDonald v. Rosengarten, 25 N. E. 429, 134 Ill. 126; Drake v. Green, 29 Pac. 584, 48 Kan. 534; McGillivray v. District Tp. of Barton (Iowa,) 65 N. W. 974.

Hill v. Stagg, 1 Wils. (Ind.) 403.

94 Lindley v. Cross, 31 Ind. 106; 95 Wetmore v. Royal, 56 N. W. 594, 55 Minn. 162; Ranson v. Sheehan, 78 Mo. 668; Armstrong v. Hallowell, 35 Pa. St. 485; Sherry v. Schraage, 4 N. W. 117, 48 Wis. 93.

96 Stetson & Post Mill Co. v. McDonald, 32 Pac. 108, 5 Wash. 496.

97 Jackman v. City of Gloucester, 9 N. E. 740, 143 Mass. 380.

98 Meyer v. Berlandi, 40 N. W. 513, 39 Minn. 438; Vreeland v. Boyle, 37 N. J. Law, 346; Beals v. Congregation B'nai Jeshurun, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 654. 99 Shattuck v. Beardsley, 46 Conn. 386; Laswell v. Presbyterian Church, 46 Mo. 279; Witte v. Meyer, 11 Wis. 295; Challoner v. Howard, 41 Wis. 355. 100 Wheeler v. Almond, 46 N. J. Law, 161. 101 James v. Van Horn, 39 N. J. Law, 353.