MECHANICS' LIENS. The lien of mechanics and material men on buildings and for work done and materials furnished is unknown either at common law or in equity ; Davis v. Farr, 13 Pa. 167; Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 561, 18 L. Ed. 894; but it ex ists in all of the United States by statute, to a greater or less extent. Each state has its own mechanic's lien law, differing often in minor particulars, but alike in the gen eral provisions. These statutes are remedial and should be liberally construed; Hays v. Mercier, 22 Neb. 656, 35 N. W. 894. In most of the states, this lien is equal to that of a judgment or mortgage, and can be assigned and enforced in a similar manner ; Goodman v. White, 26 Conn. 317. The lien affects only real estate, attaches to the materials only when they become real estate by being erected into a building and attached to the land; Coddington v. Beebe, 31 N. J. L. 477; but should the building be removed or de-• stroyed, the lien does not remain upon the land; Presbyterian Church v. Stettler, 26 Pa. 246; nor upon any portion of the materials of which the building was composed ; Appeal of Wigton, 28 Pa. 161.
In many cases a single lien is allowed upon separate buildings ; Quimby v. Durgin, 148 Mass. 104, 19 N. E. 14, 1 L. R. A. 514; Maryland Brick Co. v. Spilman, 76 Md. 337, 25 Atl. 297, 17 L. R. A. 599, 35 Am. St. Rep. 431; Walden v. Robertson, 120 Mo. 38, 25 S. W. 349; Lamont v. Le Fevre, 96 Mich. 175, 55 N. W. 687 ; Phillips v. Gilbert, 101 U. S. 721, 25 L. Ed. 833; contra, Wilcox v. Wood ruff, 61 Conn. 578, 24 Atl. 521, 1056, 17 L. R. A. 314, 29 Am. St. Rep. 222 ; Roat v. Frear, 167 Pa. 614, 31 Atl. 861; but see Linden Steel Co. v. Mfg. Co., 158 Pa. 238, 27 AU. 895. Two owners of contiguous lots may by their acts connect them so as to constitute one lot and make them subject to lien for work or material.; Menzel v. Tubbs, 51 Minn. 364, 53 N. W. 653, 1017, 17 L. R. A. 815. See note on this subject 17 L. R. A. 314.
The benefits of the statute apply only to the class of persons named therein. The contractor seems to be universally secured by the lien, and in most of the states the sub-contractor and material man are also protected by a lien. In some states these provisions extend to workmen, but generally they do not ; Phill. Mech. Liens, 53. A con
tractor's lien is not defeated by the fact that the work was only partly performed, where such part performance has been accepted; Bell v. Teague,, 85 Ala. 211, 3 South. 861; Charnley v. Honig, 74 Wis. 163, 42 N. W. 220. A contract by which a contractor agrees that he will not suffer or permit to be filed any mechanics' lien or liens against a building waives the right to file a lien in his own favor ; Scheid v. Rapp, 121 Pa. 593, 15 Atl. 652.
Mechanics' lien , laws extend to non-resi dents as well as residents ; Greenwood v. Agricultural School, 2 Swan. (Tenn.) 130; Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 343 (Gil. 320).
A New York statute giving a lien to "any person" who has furnished materials for a building in the state is available under a contract made and payable in another state ; Campbell v. Coon, 149 N. Y. 556, 44 N. E. 300, 38 L. R. A. 410.
Where the statute was silent on the sub ject of assigning a mechanic's lien, it was held that an assignee could not prosecute in his own name and avail himself of its privileges ; Caldwell v. Lawrence, 10 Wis. 331; Pearsons v. Tincker, 36 Me. 384; but in other states it has been held that the lien may be assigned precisely as any other chose in action, the assignee taking subject to the equities of the parties ; Iaege v. Bos sieux, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 83, 76 Am. Dec. 189; Johns v. Bolton, 12 Pa. 339; Busfield , v. Wheeler, 14 Allen (Mass.) 139. The right of lien survives to an executor or administra tor; Tuttle v. Howe, 14 Minn. 145 (Gil. 113), 100 Am. Dec. 205.
A mechanic's lien is not released by tak ing a note on account of it, to be credited when paid, even if the note be discounted; Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Cary Co., 68 Fed. 778, 15 C. C. A. 668, 32 U. S. App. 435; but faking a note which will mature after the expiration of the statutory period for en forcing a lien, operates as a waiver of it even under a statute providing that the tak ing of a note shall not discharge the lien ; Flenniken v. Liscoe, 64 Minn. 269, 66 N. W. 979. Taking a note as security has been held in many cases to' affect the right to a lien; McPherson v. Walton, 42 N. J. Eq. 282, 11 Atl. 21; Ford v. Wilson & Co., 85 Ga. 109, 11 S. E. 559; Kendall Mfg. Co. v. Run dle, 78 Wis. 150, 47 N. W. 364; Paddock v.