plies where the owner of contiguous lots does his own building, and the lienor furnishes him with material which goes into the buildings on both lots.472 Houses erected on adjoining platted lots are on contiguous lots, within the meaning of this statute, although there is a third house between them.473

474

§ 436. In some states a single claim, without any apportionment of the account, may even include houses on lots that are not contiguous. A claim covering several lots need not state that the lots are contiguous, or that the work on them was done under one general contract, as that is a matter of pleading.75 So a claim of lien on several mining claims need not state that they are owned or worked by the same person, so as to be deemed one mine for the purposes of the mechanic's lien act.476 It is the rule in Pennsylvania that where the buildings are separate from each other, and are not used together, a single lien for a gross amount will not lie, even though the buildings are on the same tract of land; *7 and it is held in Canada that a contractor who has built two separate buildings on the same lot, under two distinct contracts, cannot register a claim for one gross sum against the two.478 But in California where two separate buildings are constructed at different times, under different contracts between the owner and the same contractor, a mechanic's lien claim may be jointly filed against both, without specifying the amount due on each, though in such case the

contract, within the meaning of said statute. Whether any or all of the buildings lap over the lot lines is immaterial. Schroeder v. Mueller, 33 Mo. App. 28.

472 Deardorff v. Roy, 50 Mo. App. 70.

473 Bulger v. Robertson, 50 Mo. App. 499.

474 Williams v. Judd-Wells Co. (Iowa) 59 N. W. 271; Bohn Sash & Door Co. v. Case, 60 N. W. 576, 42 Neb. 281; Chadbourn v. Williams, 71 N. C. 444. Contra, Chapin v. Paper Works, 30 Conn. 461; Morris County Bank v. Rockaway Manuf'g Co., 16 N. J. Eq. 150.

475 Twitchell v. Devens, 45 Mo. App. 283; Bruce v. Hoos, 48 Mo. App. 161. A claim on two buildings erected on lots 26 and 27, and describing them as having a front of 120 feet, "the south line being 264 feet north of Fountain," sufficiently shows that the lots are contiguous. Heier v. Meisch, 33 Mo. App. 35. 476 Rico Reduction & Min. Co. v. Musgrave, 23 Pac. 458, 14 Colo. 79. 477 Taylor v. Montgomery, 20 Pa. St. 443.

478 Currier v. Friedrick, 22 Grant, Ch. 243.

479

and in

lien would be postponed to the liens of other mechanics; Ohio a single claim for the gross amount due may be filed against improvements on two adjoining lots belonging to different owners.49

Apportioned Claim.

§ 437. The objection to covering several houses with a single gross lien is that it may result in making one house liable for work done on another, and the objection to filing a separate claim on each house is that it lessens the security of the mechanic. A middle course between these two extremes is the apportioned lien,-a species of lien that occurs most frequently in Pennsylvania, though it is not unknown in other states. An apportioned lien claim includes in one claim all the buildings, but divides up the lien account, and states what part of it shall apply to each house. It is used where the work was done under one contract on several distinct buildings.481 Thus, under a contract to do all the plumbing and gasfitting in 25 houses, "to cost $1,750, or $70 per house," it is proper to file a claim apportioned as to amounts, but not as to items.+82 Where the statute allows an apportioned lien claim to be filed against adjoining houses, such a claim filed against distinct blocks of buildings separated from each other by public streets is void.483 And a claim for a mechanic's lien which, though in form an apportioned lien against a single block of houses, is in reality part of a joint claim against three several blocks of houses separated by public streets, apportioned in the first place among the blocks themselves as integers, and in the second place among the houses respectively composing such blocks, is not warranted by law, and will be stricken

479 Booth v. Pendola, 25 Pac. 1101, SS Cal. 36.

480 Edwards v. Edwards, 24 Ohio St. 402.

481 Donahoo v. Scott, 12 Pa. St. 45; Taylor v. Montgomery, 20 Pa. St. 443. It has been held that where a claim was filed against "a double dwelling house" as one building, and the evidence showed the structure to be a block of two buildings, separated from cellar to roof by a brick wall, and without internal connection, the lien was not enforceable. Roat v. Frear, 31 Atl. 861, 167 Pa. St. 614.

4×2 Armbrust v. Galloway, 2 Wkly. Notes Cas. 585.

483 Goepp v. Gartiser, 35 Pa. St. 130.

off.484

But the fact that an owner of a city block has left a narrow strip of land between two rows of houses erected thereon by him does not make the houses fronting on one side of the strip so wholly separate and distinct from those on the other side as to prevent the inclusion of them all in one general apportioned lien claim,45 and a dedication of such strip of land as a public street after the lien has attached does not affect the result.486 So, too, several houses erected at one time on the same block, half of the houses fronting on one street and half on a parallel street, the back yards of the buildings being adjoining, may be the subject of an apportioned lien claim.487 Under a statute declaring that nonapportioned claims shall be subordinate to other liens, the failure to apportion a joint claim against several houses does not avoid the lien as to purchasers for value without notice. Nor can such failure be complained of by the contracting owner, who is not affected by it.489 But the failure to apportion makes the lien subordinate to other liens, even though they accrued after the claim was filed.49 A statute requir ing a claimant who files a lien claim against two or more improvements to designate the specific amount for which he claims a lien on each does not apply where a claimant made a contract to grade two blocks of land, under which the earth from one was to be used in filling the other, and compensation was fixed at so much per cubic yard for filling.491 After judgment, execution, and sale to foreclose a mechanic's lien, it is too late to object that the lien claim which covered two separate buildings failed to apportion the lien between them. 492

St. 293.

484 Lucas v. Hunter, 25 Atl. 827, 153 Pa. 485 Fitzpatrick v. Allen, 80 Pa. St. 292; Allen v. Fitzpatrick, 9 Phila. 142; Kline's Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 422; Atkinson v. Shoemaker, 25 Atl. 59, 151 Pa. St. 153; Miller v. McDuffee, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 381; Goldheim v. Clark, 67 Md. 498. 13 Atl. 363.

456 Atkinson v. Shoemaker, 25 Atl. 59, 151 Pa. St. 153.

487 Taylor v. Montgomery, 20 Pa. St. 443.

48 Beitzel v. Stair's Adm'r, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 337.

489 Booth v. Pendola, 23 Pac. 200, 88 Cal. 36.

490 Thomas v. James, 7 Watts & S. 382.

491 Warren v. Hopkins, 42 Pac. 986, 110 Cal. 506.

492 Reece v. Haymaker, 30 Atl. 404, 164 Pa. St. 575, affirming 25 Pittsb. L.

J. 74.

Separate Claims under One Contract.

§ 438. Where a single claim, whether apportioned or in gross, will not answer, the mechanic must file separate claims against the different buildings on which he has worked. Separate claims are proper when the different buildings, although adjacent, belong to different owners,193 and also when, although belonging to the same owner, they are not adjacent.49 Thus, a contractor who builds for one sum two adjoining buildings for different owners under one contract with both may file a claim against each building, and apportion the amounts.* 495 And where a fence is built on lands of several different owners, under an entire contract, a single claim of lien on all the lands will not be good.496 And a material man who has indiscriminately furnished materials to a contractor for the erection of two adjoining houses, belonging to different owners, may divide his bill, and file a separate claim against each house.497

Choice between Different Kinds of Claims.

§ 439. There are some decisions that give the mechanic a choice of remedies. Thus, it is held in Minnesota that although, where labor is performed or material furnished under one entire contract for the erection of several buildings owned by the same person, and situated upon the same tract of land, a lien attaches upon the whole tract, as an entirety for the whole value of such labor or material, yet in such a case, if the party knows, and has the means of proving,

493 Gorgas v. Douglas, 6 Serg. & R. 512; Davis v. Farr, 13 Pa. St. 167; Harper v. Keely, 17 Pa. St. 234; Rush v. Bank, 2 Wkly. Notes Cas. 263; Millett v. Allen, 3 Wkly. Notes Cas. 374; Kerbaugh v. Henderson, 3 Phila. 17; Rathbun v. Hayford, 5 Allen (Mass.) 406; Hayden v. Logan, 9 Mo. App. 492.

494 Chapin v. Paper Works, 30 Conn. 461; Chambers v. Yarnall, 15 Pa. St. 265; Goepp v. Gartiser, 35 Pa. St. 130; Lucas v. Hunter, 25 Atl. 827, 153 Pa. St. 293; Hill v. Ryan, 54 Ind. 118; McGrew v. McCarty, 78 Ind. 496; Bolen Coal Co. v. Ryan, 48 Mo. App. 512; Goodman v. Fried, 55 Ill. App. 362. 495 Rush v. Bank, 2 Wkly. Notes Cas. 263.

496 Rathbun v. Hayford, 5 Allen (Mass.) 406.

497 Davis v. Farr, 13 Pa. St. 167; Harper v. Keely, 17 Pa. St. 234; Millett v. Allen, 3 Wkly. Notes Cas. 374.

MECH.LIENS-29

(449)

the kind and amount of material and labor which in fact went into the construction of each building, his lien will not be lost or prejudiced by the fact that he filed a separate claim therefor against each building, provided there are no third parties interested in the property whose rights would be affected.498 It is the rule in Missouri that if a subcontractor does work and furnishes materials, under one general contract with the original contractor, upon two buildings situated on contiguous lots, he is not restricted to one lien therefor, but may file a separate claim against each building, the statute allowing him in such a case to file one claim against both buildings not being mandatory.499 And it has been held in Pennsylvania that a mechanic who is entitled to file a joint apportioned lien claim against 65 houses may file two apportioned claims, one against 20 of the houses, and the other against the remaining 45, provided the same bill of particulars and contract are filed with each claim.500

Omission of Required Allegations.

§ 440. Even in states that follow the rule of liberal construction of mechanic's lien statutes, it is held that a substantial adherence to the terms of the statute in the claim of lien is indispensable.5" Under a statute requiring a statement of all the facts necessary to constitute a lien, the omission of any essential fact is fatal.502 In general it may be said that a claim which wholly omits to state any matter required by the statute will not sustain a lien. Thus, liens have been lost because the claim did not state the owner's name,

498 Lax v. Peterson, 44 N. W. 3, 42 Minn. 214.

499 Kick v. Doerste, 45 Mo. App. 134.

503 or the

500 Brick Co. v. Norton, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 559. This case seems to conflict with the previous decision of Hillary v. Mole, 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. 239.

501 Malter v. Mining Co., 18 Nev. 213, 2 Pac. 50.

502 Wooten v. Archer, 49 Ga. 388. This was so held in this case on collateral attack.

503 Phelps v. Mining Co., 49 Cal. 337; Hooper v. Flood, 54 Cal. 218; Malter v. Mining Co., 2 Pac. 50, 18 Nev. 209; Steinman v. Miller, 12 Wkly. Notes Cas. 244; Warren v. Quade, 29 Pac. 827, 3 Wash. 750. But where the claim states that the claimant was informed that a person named was the owner of the premises, and it appears that he was in fact the owner, the claim is sufficient, though the averment is not stated to be in accordance with the "best" informa