Statutes providing that mechanic's liens shall have priority over mortgages prior in time, are generally held valid as to mortgages executed after the passage of such act.1 Subcontractors' liens are of two kinds. Some statutes, the subrogation lien acts, give him a lien upon the realty on which the work is done but limit his recovery to the amount due under the contract from the owner of the realty to the main contractor. Statutes giving liens of this class are valid, and there is little dispute on this question. The others, known as direct lien acts, give him a lien upon the realty for the amount due him from the main contractor, irrespective of the state of accounts under the contract between the owner of the realty and the main contractor. As to the constitutionality of such statutes there is a difference of opinion, some courts holding them valid,2 while a minority hold them invalid.3 A statute requiring a bond to pay subcontractors to be filed with the contract, and making the owner personally liable if no bond is filed, has been held invalid.4 A statute requiring those who contract about erecting buildings to give bonds for performance of such contracts, which bonds shall enure to the benefit of all who furnish materials is unconstitutional.5 A statute providing that the purchaser of property encumbered by a statutory lien who sells such property so that such lien cannot be enforced, shall be personally liable for the entire debt secured by such lien is invalid.6 A statute providing that the purchaser of logs subject to loggers' liens is not a bona fide purchaser unless he has paid full value and has seen the purchase money applied to the payment of such liens is valid.7 So a statute providing that a sale of a stock of goods in bulk shall be deemed fraudulent unless the vendee requires and receives from the vendor a verified statement of the vendor's creditors, and sees that the purchase money is applied to such debts is valid.8

200; 31 S. W. 9; Perkins v. Heert, 158 N. Y. 306; 70 Am. St. Rep. 483; 43 L. R. A. 858; 53 N. E. 18.

4 Marshall & Bruce Co. v. Nashville, 109 Term. 495; 71 S. W. 815.

5 People v. Coler, 166 N. Y. 144; 59 N. E. 776.

6 Mathews v. People, 202 111. 389; 95 Am. St. Rep. 241; 63 L. R. A. 73; 67 N. E. 28.

1 Wimberley v. Mayberry, 94 Ala. 240; 14 L. R. A. 305; 10 So. 157; Smith v. Moore, 26 111. 392; Stock-well v. Carpenter, 27 la. 119; Montgomery v. Allen, 107 Ky. 298; 53 S. W. 813; Crandall v. Cooper, 62 Mo. 478. Contra, Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438; 12 Am. St. Rep. 663; 1 L. R. A. 777; 40 N. W. 513. (Even where the lien was claimed only on the building erected after the mortgage was given.)

2 Great Southern, etc., Co. v. Jones, 193 U. S. 532 (affirming 116 Fed. 793; 54 C. C. A. 165, which was a decree rendered after the reversal (on the ground that the record did not show diverse citizenship) in 177 U. S. 449, of Jones v. Hotel Co., 86 Fed. 370; 30 C. C. A. 108, which in turn reversed 79 Fed. 477) ; Chicago Lumber Co. v. New-comb, - Colo. App. - ; 74 Pac. 786; Paine v. Tillinghast, 52 Conn.

532; Barrett v. Millikan, 156 Ind. 510; 83 Am. St. Rep. 220; 60 N. E. 310; Smith v. Newbaur, 144 Ind. 95; 33 L. R. A. 685; 42 N. E. 40; affirmed on rehearing. 33 L. R. A. 687; 42 N. E. 1094; Hightower v. Bailey, 108 Ky. 198; 94 Am. St. Rep. 350; 49 L. R. A. 255; 56 S. W. 147; McKeon v. Supply Co., 51 La. Ann. 1961; Treuseh v. Shryock, 51 Md. 162; Bowen v. Phinney, 162 Mass. 593; Bardwell v. Mann, 46 Minn. 285; 48 N. W. 1120; Laird v. Moonan, 32 Minn. 358; 20 N. W. 354; Smalley v. Gearing, 121 Mich. 190; Henry, etc., Co. v. Evans. 97 Mo. 47; Calpetzer v. Church, 24 Neb. 113; 37 N. W. 931; Glacius v. Black. 67 N. Y. 563; Blauvelt v. Woodworth. 31 N. Y. 285; Title Guarantee Co. v. Wrenn, 35 Or. 62; 76 Am. St. Rep. 454; 56 Pac. 271; Gurney. v. Walsham. 16 R. I. 698; Albright v. Smith, 3 S. D. 631; 54

N. W. 816; s. c, 2 S. D. 577; 51 N. W. 590; Cole Mfg. Co. v. Falls, 90 Tenn. 466; Roanoke, etc., Co. v. Karn, 80 Va. 589; Mallory v. Abattoir Co., 80 Wis. 170; 49 N. W. 1071.

3 Palmer v. Tingle, 55 O. S. 423; 45 N. E. 313.

4 Shaughnessey v. Surety Co., 138 Cal. 543; 69 Pac. 250; 71 Pac. 701; Gibbs v. Tally, 133 Cal. 373; 60 L. R. A. 815; 65 Pac. 970.

5 Snell v. Bradbury, 139 Cal. 379; 73 Pac. 150; San Francisco Lumber Co. v. Bibb, 139 Cal. 192; 72 Pac. 964.

6 Rogers-Rugers Co. v. Murray, 115 Wis. 267; 95 Am. St. Rep. 901; 59 L. R. A. 737; 91 N. W. 657.

7 McCoy v. Cook, 13 Wash. 158; 42 Pac. 546.

8 McDaniels v. Shoe Co.. 30 Wash. 549; 94 Am. St. Rep. 889; 60 L. R. A. 947; 71 Pac. 37.