Beehler v. Ijams

• Decision Date: 18 March 1890
• Parties: BEEHLER v. IJAMS ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

19 A. 646

72 Md. 193

BEEHLER v. IJAMS ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 18, 1890

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Bill by Jacob W. Ijams and others against Elijah J. Bond, C. Edward Beehler and others for the enforcement of their mechanics' liens against three houses in Baltimore city and the lots on which the houses are built. There was a decree in complainants' favor, and defendant Beehler appeals. Code Md. 1888, art. 21, § 14, provides: "Every deed of real property, when acknowledged and recorded as herein directed, [recorded within six months from its execution,] shall take effect, as between the parties thereto, from its date."

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and IRVING, BRYAN, MCSHERRY, FOWLER, and ROBINSON, JJ.

James W. Bowers, Jr., and Fielder C Slingluff, for appellant.

Wm. P. Lyons, Robt. D. Morrison, M. Munnikhuysen, N. P. Bond, Benj. E. P. Crampton, Morton Schaeffer, Beirne Lay, and Wm. A. Hammond, for appellees.

ROBINSON J.

We agree with the court below that the liens claimed in this case attach to and may be enforced against the leasehold estate; but we do not agree that they are enforceable against the reversionary interest of Beehler, the appellant. Where materials are furnished to one who is the owner in fee, the lien, no doubt, attaches not only to the building itself, but also to so much of the ground as may be necessary for the ordinary and useful purposes of such building. Section 4 art. 63, Code. But where, as in this case, the property is leased for 99 years, renewable forever, upon the payment of annual ground-rent to the lessor and his assigns, and the building is erected by the lessee or his agent, the lien attaches to the leasehold estate only. Section 9, art. 63. The lessee, in such cases, has the absolute control and management of the property, and has the exclusive right to improve it, so long as he pays the stipulated rent, and renews the lease according to the terms of the covenant, and he and his representatives are entitled to hold, occupy, and enjoy the property, and the reversioner can never, under any circumstances, obtain possession of the demised premises. All this was said in Crowe v. Wilson, 65 Md. 479, 5 A. 427. Now, in this case, Ould, on the 29th of April, 1887, conveyed to Bond a lot of ground in fee. This lot Bond divided into eleven building lots, and on the same day (April 29th) he leased to Carson three of these lots for 99 years, renewable forever, upon the payment of annual ground-rent of $141 on each lot. On May 2, 1887, at 8:30 A. M., the deed from Ould to Bond and the deed from Bond to Carson were recorded among the land records of Baltimore county. Earlier in the morning of the same day, (May 2d,) at 7 o'clock, the buildings on the lots leased to Carson were begun, and the materials for which these liens are claimed were furnished in the course of the erection of these buildings. It thus appears that the buildings were begun one hour and thirty minutes before the deed in fee to Bond and the deed of the leasehold to Carson were filed for record, and, this being so, the lien for the materials, it is claimed, attached to the property in fee. But to this we cannot agree. The mechanic's lien attaches, no doubt, from the time the building is actually begun; but the deed from Ould to Bond and the deed from Bond to Carson, although recorded on the 2d May were executed on the 29th April, and, having been recorded within the time prescribed by the Code, they take effect from the day of their execution. Code, art. 21, § 14. So, when these buildings were begun, and when the liens attached, Carson was the owner of the leasehold, and Bond was the owner of the...