Statement. District of Columbia, ss: I, Guy H. Johnson, a notary public in and for the District of Columbia, do certify that S. Franklin Gardner, one of the partners doing business under the firm name and style of the Standard Engineering Company, personally appeared before me in my said District and made oath to the correctness of the foregoing account. Given under my hand this 6th day of March, 1914. (Seal) GUY H. JOHNSON, Notary Public. My commission expires on the 3rd day of January, 1917. GUY H. JOHNSON, Notary Public, D. C. CLAIM OF LIEN. S. F. Gardner, E. J. Ewing and R. Messier, partners trading under the firm name and style of the Standard Engineering Company, contractors, do hereby declare their intention of claiming a mechanics lien on all that certain hotel building, known as "Hotel Rueger," lying and being at the southeast corner of Bank and Ninth streets, in the city of Richmond, Virginia, and the lot or piece of ground and curtilage appurtenant to the said building, fronting on said Ninth street fifty-three (53) feet, more or less, and running back between parallel lines, the northern one of which is the southern line of Bank street, one hundred and five (105) feet, more or less, being the same lot conveyed to Hotel Rueger, Incorporated, by William Rueger, by deed dated August 29, 1912, recorded in D. B. 218-D, p. 134, in the office of the Chancery Court of the city of Richmond, Virginia, to which deed reference is hereby made for a Statement. more particular description of said lot; to secure the pay-. ment of $2,429.75, with interest thereon from the 28th day of January, 1914, until paid, being a debt contracted for work done and materials furnished as shown by the account to which this statement is attached, for the construction and improvement of the said building and appurtenances, of which Hotel Rueger, Incorporated, is the owner, or reputed owner, and at the instance and request of F. T. Nesbit & Co., Inc., of No. 116 Nassau street, New York, they being the general contractors for the erection of said building, which said building, situated as aforesaid, was completed or the work thereon terminated, within sixty days next preceding the filing of this claim. And the said S. F. Gardner, E. J. Ewing and R. Messier, doing business as partners under the firm name and style of the Standard Engineering Company, in the city of Washington, D. C., as aforesaid, claim to have a lien on the said building and the lot or piece of ground and curtilage, appurtenant to the said building from the commencement thereof for the aforesaid sum and interest according to the statute in such case made and provided; and the said claimant herewith files an account showing the nature and the character of the work done, and the materials furnished, the price charged therefor, the payments made, and the balance due, verified by oath. Witness the signature of the said Standard Engineering Company this 6th day of March, 1914. THE STANDARD ENGINEERING CO., By S. FRANKLIN GARDNER. District of Columbia, to-wit: I, Guy H. Johnson, a notary public for the city of Washington and the District of Columbia, do certify that S. Opinion. Franklin Gardner, a member of the partnership firm of the Standard Engineering Company, whose name is signed to the foregoing writing dated the 6th day of March, 1914, has acknowledged the same before me in my city and District aforesaid. Given under my hand this 6th day of March, 1914. (Seal) GUY H. JOHNSON, Notary Public. My commission expires on the 3rd day of January, 1917. The opinion states the case. A. W. Patterson, H. R. Miller, S. S. P. Patteson and John B. Minor, for the appellants. R. E. Scott and Williams & Mullen, for the appellee. WHITTLE, P., delivered the opinion of the court. On July 2, 1912, William Rueger, the then owner of certain real estate located at the southeast corner of Ninth and Bank streets, in the city of Richmond, entered into a written agreement with F. T. Nesbit & Co., Inc., builders, for the construction on the above-mentioned site of a hotel building, to be known as "Hotel Rueger." On August 26, 1912, the "Hotel Rueger" was incorporated under the name of "Hotel Rueger, Inc.," and took over the real estate and the building contract. The building was completed about March 14, 1914. A large number of sub-contracts were let by F. T. Nesbit & Co., Inc., for parts of the work; and when the building was approaching completion it became financially embarrassed and subsequently went into bankruptcy. Opinion. On February 16, 1914, H. N. Francis & Co., Inc., a subcontractor, instituted a suit in the Chancery Court of the city of Richmond against "Hotel Rueger, Inc.," and F. T. Nesbit & Co., Inc., to enforce its mechanic's lien; and on June 1, 1914, a decree of reference was entered therein. On May 6, 1914, Engleby & Bro., Inc., another sub-contractor, filed its original bill in the same court against the same defendants for the enforcement of its claim of lien, and an order of reference was made therein on February 2, 1915. And on June 4, 1914, Hotel Rueger, Inc., filed its bill in the chancery court against F. T. Nesbit & Co., Inc., and all of the sub-contractors who had filed mechanic's liens, setting up its contract with F. T. Nesbit & Co., Inc., alleging that there was a certain balance in its hands due to the general contractor, and that various sub-contractors named as defendants had filed mechanic's liens against the real estate, and praying that all of said lien claimants be convened, the validity of the respective claims of lien be ascertained, and that the amount in the hands of Hotel Rueger, Inc., due to F. T. Nesbit & Co., Inc., be ascertained and applied to the payment of such liens as were found to be valid. On February 2, 1915, the cause was referred to a commissioner (to whom the other two causes, as above mentioned, had already been referred), and the three causes were directed to be thereafter heard together. Among other inquiries, the commissioner was directed to report an account of all liens against the property. The commissioner, on February 15, 1916, returned his report showing that there remained in the hands of the owner due to F. T. Nesbit & Co., Inc., and subject to the valid liens of the sub-contractors, the sum of $4,359.79; and disallowing upon technical grounds the claims of liens of H. N. Francis & Co., Inc., Pittsburg Plate Glass Company, and Standard Engineering Company. With respect to the Warren-Ehret Company's claim, the commissioner reported that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Opinion. From the decree of August 3, 1917, overruling the exceptions of the above-named parties to the report of the commissioner disallowing their respective claims of liens upon the fund in controversy, and confirming the report, an appeal was taken to this court and the cause is before us for review. [1] An examination of outside authorities shows that there exists a hopeless diversity of opinion as to whether mechanics' lien statutes should receive a liberal or strict construction. We believe the correct rule deducible from the language and purposes of our statute and the decisions of this court with respect to it is, that there must be a substantial compliance with the requirement of that portion of the statute which relates to the creation of the lien; but that the provisions with respect to its enforcement should be liberally construed. Thus, section 2478 of the Code provides: "No inaccuracy in the account filed, or in the description of the property to be covered by the lien, shall invalidate the lien, if the property can be reasonably identified by the description given and the account conform substantially to the requirements of the two preceding sections, and is not wilfully false." But it was held in Gilman v. Ryan, 95 Va. 494, 28 S. E. 875, that in order to obtain the benefit of the above section the provisions of sections 2476 and 2477 must be substantially complied with. See also Clement v. Adams, 113 Va. 547, 75 S. E. 294. [2] It may also be observed that a distinction runs through the authorities in regard to the particularity required in specifying the amount and character of the work done or materials furnished, and the prices charged therefor, where the claim rests upon open account and where the work done or materials furnished were contracted for as an entirety. More particularity of statement is required in the former than in the latter instance. We think, too, that the case of Taylor v. Netherwood, 91 |