1018; Sheehy v. Fulton, 38 Neb. 691, 41 Am. St. Rep. 767, 57 N. W. 395.

20. Henderson v. Connolly, 123 Ill 98, 5 Am. St. Rep. 490, 14 N.

E. 1; Shearer v. Wilder, 56 Kan. 252, 43 Pac. 224; Baker v. Wal-dron, 92 Me. 17, 69 Am. St. Rep. 483, 42 Atl. 225; Davis v. Humphrey, 112 Mass. 309; Brown v. Jones, 52 Minn. 484, 55 N. W. 54; Hackett v. Badeau, 63 N. Y. 476; Edwards & McCulloch Lumber Co. v. Mosher, 88 Wis. 672, 60 N. W. 264.

21. See Work v. Hall, 79 Ill. 196; Fleming v. Bumgarner, 29 Ind. 424; Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 173; Williams v. Chicago, S.

F. & C. Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 463, 34

Likewise, a mortgage of the land or other lien thereon, taking effect after the inception of the mechanic's lien, is subject thereto.22 A mortgage executed and recorded before the attaching of the lien will take precedence thereof,23 and, in some states, it is sufficient that it be executed, though not recorded.24 Under the statutes of some states, a mechanic's lien, while subject to a prior mortgage or other incumbrance as regards the land and pre-existing improvements thereon, takes precedence as to improvements for the creation or repair of which the lien is claimed.25

The time at which the mechanic's lien attaches to the land is of primary importance in determining priorities as between the lien and the claims of purchasers or other incumbrancers. In some states the lien attaches when the contract under which the labor or materials are furnished was made,26 in some, when the building or improvement was commenced,27 in some, when the person asserting the lien first began to furnish the labor or materials for which the lien is claimed,28 and in others, when a claim or statement of the lien is filed, or notice of the claim is given to the owner.29

Am. St. Rep. 403, 20 S. W. 631; Blauvelt v. Woodworth, 31 N. Y. 285; Burr v. Maultsby, 99 N. C. 263, 6 Am. St. Rep. 517, 6 S. E. 108; Ambrose v. Woodmansee, 27 Ohio St. 147.

22. Jones, Liens, Sec.Sec. 1457-1486; Soule v. Hurlbut, 58 Conn. 511, 20 Atl. 610; Thielman v. Carr, 75 I11. 385; Dunklee v. Crane, 103 Mass. 470; Hahn's Appeal, 39 Pa. St. 409.

23. Folsom v. Cragen, 11 Colo. 205, 17 Pac. 515; National Bank of Athens v. Danforth, 80 Ga. 55, 7 S. E. 546; Thielman v. Carr, 75 I11. 385; Jean v. Wilson, 38 Md. 288; Batchelder v. Hutchinson, 161 Mass. 462, 37 N. E. 452; Or-tonville v. Geer, 93 Minn. 501, 106 Am. St. Rep. 445, 101 N. W. 963; 2 Jones, Liens, Sec. 1460.

24. Root v. Bryant, 57 Cal. 48; Ryder v. Cobb, 68 Iowa, 235, 26 N. W. 91; Oliver v. Davy, 34

Minn. 292, 25 N. W. 629; Math-wig v. Mann, 96 Wis. 213, 65 Am. St. Rep. 47, 71 N. W. 105.

25. See Wimberly v. Mayberry, 94 Ala 240, 14 L. R. A. 305, 10 So. 157; Preston v. Sonora Lodge, No. 10, 39 Cal. 116; Jarvis v. State Bank, 22 Colo. 309, 55 Am. St. Rep. 129, 45 Pac. 505; Bradley v. Simpson, 93 I11. 93; Tower v. Moore, 104 Iowa, 345, 73 N. W. 823; Ivey v. White, 50 Miss. 142; Russell v. Grant, 122 Mo. 161, 43 Am. St. Rep. 563, 26 S. W. 958; Smith v. Wilkins, 38 Ore. 583, 64 Pac. 760; Land Mortgage Bank v. Quanah Hotel Co., 89 Tex. 332, 34 S W. 730; 2 Jones, Liens, Sec. 1462; Boisot, Mech. Liens, Sec. 149.

26. Paddock v. Stout, 121 III. 571, 13 N. E. 182; Farnham v. Richardson, 91 Me. 559, 40 Atl. 553; Dunklee v. Crane, 103 Mass. 470.

- Assertion and enforcement of lien. The statutes quite frequently provide that one seeking to enforce a mechanic's lien shall so notify the owner of the land, this requirement existing especially in the case of liens in favor of persons not contracting directly with such owner, such as subcontractors, and persons furnishing materials to contractors.30

In most states there is a statutory requirement that the person claiming the lien file, within a certain time, a verified statement of the character of the contract, the work done thereunder, the amount due, the property on which the lien is claimed, and, frequently, other matters concerning the claim. This statement is called by different names, such as "claim," "notice," or "account," and the statutory requirements in regard thereto must be strictly complied with.31 The effect of filing such a statement is to establish the lien, since it serves as notice to all the world of the existence of the claim. After the lien is thus established, the lienor may begin a proceeding to sell the land under the lien. This proceeding is usually in equity, and is similar, in its general aspects, to an equitable suit for the sale of land under a mortgage.32

27. Apperson v. Farrell, 56 Ark. 640, 20 S. W. 514; Neilson v. Iowa Eastern Ry. Co., 44 Iowa, 71; Kansas Mortgage Co. v. Weyerhaeuser, 48 Kan. 335, 29 Pac. 153; M liner v. Norris, 13 Minn. 455; Henry v. Hand, 36 Ore. 492, 59 Pac. 330; Oriental Hotel Co. v. Griffiths, 88 Tex. 574, 30 L. R. A. 765, 53 Am. St. Rep. 790, 33 S. W. 652; Sanford v. Kunkel, 30 Utah, 379, 85 Pac. 363, 1012; Fitzgerald v. Walsh, 107 Wis. 92, 81 Am. St. Rep. 824, 82 N. W. 717.

28. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 106 Cal 224, 39 Pac. 758; Tritch v. Norton, 10 Colo. 337, 15 Pac. 680; Kellenberger v. Boyer, 37 Ind. 188; Jones & Magee Lumber Co. v. Murphy, 64 Iowa, 165,

19 N. W. 898; Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 890, 47 Am. St. Rep. 779, 62 N. W. 320; Burr v. Maults-by, 99 N. C. 263, 6 Am. St. Rep. 517, 6 S. E. 108; Green v. Williams, 92 Tenn. 220, 19 L. R. A. 478, 21 S. W. 520.

29. Cahoon v. Levy, 6 Cal. 295, 65 Am. Dec. 515; McCorkle v. Herrman, 117 N. Y. 297, 22 N. E. 948; Ritchey v. Risley, 3 Ore. 184; Hinckley & Egery Iron Co. v. James, 51 Vt. 240.

30. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, 1965, 1967.

31. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 1968; Phillips, Mech. Liens, Sec. 337 et seq.; Boisot, Mech. Liens, Sec. 374 et seq.

- Release or "waiver" of lien. The right to a mechanic's lien may be released or "waived," as it is usually expressed, one being regarded as having waived the right when he has taken some action which the court regards as indicative of an election not to assert a lien. In some states a waiver is prima facie inferred from the fact that the person furnishing labor or materials has taken collateral security,33-34 or a mortgage on the specific land,35 for his claim. The mere acceptance of a note, signed by the owner or other person liable for the debt, is not a waiver, in the absence of an intention to that effect.36

32. 2 Jones, Liens, Sec. 1554 et seq.; Boisot, Mech. Liens, Sec. 507 et seq.

33-34. Clark v. Moore, 64 III. 273; Bristol-Goodson Electric Light & Power Co. v. Bristol Gas, Electric Light & Power Co, 99 Tenn. 371, 42 S. W. 19; Phoenix Mfg. Co. v. CcCormick Harvesting Machine Co., III Wis. 570, 87 N. W. 458. See Grant v. Strong, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 623, 21 L. Ed. 859. By statute in several states, the lien is waived by taking collateral security, 2 Jones, Liens, Sec. 1519. But that taking collateral security does not raise any presumption of waiver, see Ford v. Wilson, 85 Ga. 109, 11 S. E. 559; Maryland Brick Co. v. Spilman, 76 Md. 37, 17 L. R. A. 597, 35 Am. St. Rep. 43, 25 Atl. 297, (statute); Hoagland v.

Lusk, 33 Neb. 376, 29 Am. St. Rep. 485, 50 N. W. 162; Taliaferro v. Stevenson, 58 N. J. L. 165, 33 Atl. 383; Hinchman v. Lybrand, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 32.

35. Grant v. Strong, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 623, 21 L. Ed. 859; Wil-lison v. Douglas, 66 Md. 99, 6 Atl. 530; Baumhoff v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 171 Mo. 120, 94 Am. St. Rep. 77, 71 S. W. 156; Weaver v. Demuth, 40 N. J. L. 238; Trul-linger v. Kofoed, 7 Ore. 228, 33 Am. Rep. 708. Contra, Parberry v. Johnson, 51 Miss. 291; Gilcrest v. Gottschalk, 39 Iowa, 311; Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 890, 47 Am. St. Rep. 779, 62 N. W. 320; Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank of Fort Worth v. Taylor, 91 Tex. 78, 40 S. W. 876, 966.

36. Montandon v. Deas, 14 Ala.