
    Buck, Appellant, v. Brian.
    The statutes of 1821 and 1830 give to carpenters and joiners a lien for the price of their labor on the building on which it has been bestowed, and for materials furnished, when the contract between such carpenter or joiner and his employer has been reduced to writing and filed in the clerk’s office within three months from its execution.
    Filing the contract in the clerk’s office is notice of the lien to subsequent purchasers.
    The claims of the mechanic for the reward of his labor are favored in the law.
    APPEAL from chancery.
    Thomas Brian filed his bill in the superior court of chancery, setting forth, that on the 1st day of August, 1834, being a carpenter and joiner, he in that capacity contracted, for the sum of 3475 dollars, to build for Wilson and M’Donald a store and warehouse of certain dimensions; that their contract for that purpose was reduced to writing, signed by the parties, and recorded in the clerk’s office of the probate court, within three months from its date.
    Brian alleged that he proceeded to fulfil his contract, and did build and finish such a store and warehouse as he had stipulated to erect, which Was received by the said' Wilson and M’Donald,that there remained due him from them, under the contract, the sum of 1147 dollars 32 cents, with interest, which Wilson and M’Donald refused to pay.
    Brian also alleged that the appellant, W. R. Buck, had purchased of Wilson and M’Donald their interest in the lot on which said building was constructed, and that he was, at the commencement of this suit, in possession of the same. Brian asserted a lien for the payment of the balance due him under the contract, on the said store and warehouse, and prayed that the buildings be sold under a decree of the chancellor and the proceeds appropriated to the satisfaction of his claim.
    Wilson and M’Donald answered the bill, admitted the contract, but denied that' the' buildings were completed within the time limited by the contract.
    Buck, the appellant, denied all knowledge of the facts set out in the bill, and alleged that at the time the buildings were erected Wilson and M’Donald had but an equitable interest in the lot, the legal estate being in one Benjamin Hughes, from whom, in May, 1835, he obtained a conveyance, having previously purchased the interest of Wilson and M’Donald. He also denied all-notice of Brian’s lien.
    Upon the hearing of the cause, the chancellor pronounced a decree in favor of the appellee for the amount <of his claim and interest. His lien was recognised and the buildings directed to be sold: from which decree Buck appealed to this court.
    Thrasher, for the appellant.
    ■ The first error assigned in this case is, “ That the chancellor erred in decreeing that the contract set up - in complainant’s bill, marked exhibit A, was a lien on the building or house specified in the complainant’s bill, or that the same constituted by the laws of this state any lien whatever, and if it did create a lien, yet that the same had never been legally recorded and could not operate ‘ as a lien.” Exhibit A was a contract entered into between the complainant, a mechanic, and Wilson’ and M’Donald, by which the former undertook to build for the latter a house of certain dimensions at the Grand Gulf.' The object of the contract was obviously for the purpose of stipulating the'price, kind and quality of the building to be erected, and to' define the terms of the agreement, and not to create a lien on the building, as. is apparent’from readiug the same. There are no words, phrases or other indications in this agreement,’that the parties even'intended by it to create a lien. It does not of itself- create a lien, but on the contrary the defendants, Wilson and M’Donald,'swear in their answer that no lien was intended; but the complainant, Thomas Brian, afterwards and within three months from its date had it recorded without proof without the acknowledgment of the defendants, Wilson and M’Donald, or either of them, and , contrary to'law; for the clerk could not legally record it without proof of attesting witnesses, or the acknowledgment of the parties legally taken and certified. See Code.
    Hence the complainant failed to bring himself within the provisions of the statute by having legally recorded within three months, even if the instrument itself had contained a stipulation for a lien on the building. Such a registration could constitute no notice to purchasers or others. See Am. Chan. Dig. 350; and 18 Johns. Rep. 544.
    
      “ An unauthorised registry of a mortgage, or one registered without any previous proof or acknowledgment would not be notice to a subsequent purchaser.” But unquestionably the instrument itself must show that the parties intended a lien, and if they failed to stipulate for a lien in the contract, courts will not supply the omission in the absence of proof, by deciding that they intended something else which they did not specify in the contract. The first act of the legislature under which the complainant contends for a lien, was an act passed for the relief of mechanics, and extended only to the city of Natchez; Code, 472; and the subsequent act, Code, 473, extends it to buildings in Monticello; and the third section extends it to buildings all over the state, and assimilates it to mortgages; but by that act the contract is to be recorded in the county of Lawrence. This law certainly contemplated a contract, .that by its terms created a lien; for the instrument itself is the only evidence of the intention of the parties up to, and at the time of its execution. See 5 Wend. Rep. 190. The act of 1830, December session, p. 46, extends the provisions of the Monticello act of 1821 to all mechanics as a preference to judgments and claims prior to, as well as subsequent to, the commencement of the building, and repeals all acts, and parts of acts, coming within the purview of it. This last act does not make a contract a lion unless the parties show it by the contract itself, and a dealing on credit is wholly inconsistent with implied liens, by operation of law. Montague on Liens, 44. And a specific price being agreed on, is a waiver of such a lien. Montague on Liens, 43.
    It is, therefore, contended that on the first error assigned, the decree of 'the chancellor must be reversed, first, because the contract set up creates no lien by its terms; and, secondly, because it was not legally recorded.
    The second error assigned is, “ That the court erred in decreeing that the contract on exhibit A was a lien on said house in the hands of Buck, an innocent purchaser from B. Hughes, without notice, in whom the fee simple to said lot had always been vested.” This second assignment contains error for which the defendants below contend that the decree must be reversed, first, because the contract on exhibit A bears no evidence of a lien or an intention to create a lien on the face of it, and therefore was no notice to Buck, the innocent purchaser; and, secondly, because it had not been legally recorded, and the placing it in the record books by the clerk without proof, was no notice to Buck, an innocent purchaser. “ An authorised registry of a mortgage or one registered without proof or acknowledgment would not be notice to a subsequent purchaser.” Chan. Dig. 350; 18 Johns. Rep. 300.
    Hence it follows that equity gives no assistance against a purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice. See 1 Johns. Chan. Rep. 298; Chan. Dig. 506.
    And lastly, the court erred in decreeing that the house should be sold, or so much thereof as would pay the balance due to said Brian from Wilson and M’Donald. The consideration of this last error is involved in the first and second, and grows out of the same; from all of which it is contended that the decree must be reversed.
    Holt, contra.
    
    The objections taken to the decree resolved themselves into two:
    1. That the contract, as drawn, gives no lien to complainant, against any person.
    2. That William R. Buck, purchaser of the lot and building^ cannot be reached by said lien, he being a purchaser without notice.
    The lien of which complainant seeks to avail himself is given by the statute entitled “ An act for the relief of Mechanics,” passed February 9th, 1821; Revised Code, 473-4; and an act supplemental thereto, passed December 6th,. 1830. He has by his bill and proof, it is believed, brought himself within the letter and spirit of these statutes and is-entitled to the benefit of their provisions. He has made his contract, reduced it to writing, and had it recorded in the proper office within the time prescribed. Why,then, should he not have the lien? It is answered because, in totidem verbis, he has not stipulated for it in his contract. This is not required. The lien is the legal.result of certain acts, and attaches whenever the performance of. those acts is shown. The statute does not contemplate that the, mechanic shall manifest his, intention to insist upon his lien, by inserting such purpose in thé body of his contract. His intention is to be displayed by certain acts enumerated in the following words of the second section of the act of 1821. “ Any mechanic who intends to avail himself of the benefit of this act shall, within three months after making a contract for the performance of any work contemplated by this act or materials to be furnished, file in the clerk’s office of the county, a written contract of the agreement with his employer, which contract the clerk shall record,” &c.
    This is the mode pointed out by the statute, by which an intention to insist upon the lien is-to.be-manifested, and this is the mode which complainant has literally pursued., The party' could have no object in spreading his contract.upon the record but that of giving publicity to his lien. The statute has made this act of registration a proclamation of the mechanic’s right, of which all the world is bound to take notice.
    The second objection is without semblance of soundness. The registration of the contract within the time prescribed, was legal notice to W. R. Buck. But he had notice in fact. The complainant was at work upon the building when he purchased and took possession of it. He was bound to notice the claim of the mechanics; there was enough .at least to have awakened inquiry, which is all the laiv requires in regard to notice. It is wholly immaterial who held the legal, and who the equitable title to the lot on which the building was erected. The lien does not attach 
      to the lot but to the building, which alone the decree directs to be sold.
    Claims of the mechanics are favored in law. They are an unlettered class of men, and courts will uphold the policy of the country in giving 'these statutes a free interpretation in favor of the laborer. They were made to secure to him the rewarding his toil and should not be baffled by any subterfuge. 12 Wend. 375.
   Mr. Justice Peat

delivered the opinion of the court.

Thomas Brian, complainant, filedhis bill in the superior court of chancery setting forth, that on the first day of August, 1834, being a carpenter and joiner residing in the town of Grand Gulf, he in that capacity contracted, for the sum of 3475 dollars, to build for Wilson and M’Donald a store and warehouse of certain dimensions. That this contract for that purpose was reduced to writing, signed by the parties and recorded in the clerk’s office of the probate court of Claiborne county within three months from its date. That he proceeded to fulfil his contract, and did build and finish such a store and warehouse' as he had stipulated to erect, which was received by the said-Wilson and M’Donald. That there remained due to him, from them, under said contract, the sum of 1147 dollars 32 cents with interest, which the said Wilson and M’Donald refused to pay. . • ■

He also states that the appellant, William R. Buck, has purchased of Wilson and M’Donald their interest in the lot on- which said building was constructed, and that he is now in possession of the same. .

He asserts a lien for the balance due him under the contract to build the said store and warehouse/and prays that they may be sold under a decree of the court, and the proceeds appropriated to the satisfaction of his claim.

Wilson and M’Donald, the defendants, answer, admitting sub-tantially the allegations of the bill, but denying that the store .and warehouse were completed within the time limited by the contract. ’ . ■

The defendant, William R. Buck, denies all knowledge of the facts set out in the bill. He alleges that at the time the building was erected Wilson and M’Donald had but an equitable interest in the lot, the legal estate being in one Benjamin Hughes, from whom in May, 1835, he obtained a conveyance thereof; having previously purchased of Wilson and M’Donald their interest therein. He denies all notice of complainant’s lien; claims the protection of the court as a purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice.

The court below recognised the lien of the complainant and ordered the building to be sold. From which decree William R. Buck has appealed to this court.

The objections taken to the decree are in substance the following:

1. That the contract, as drawn, gives no lien to the complainant against any one.

2. That William R. Buck, purchaser of the lot and building, cannot be reached by said lien, he being a purchaser without notice.

The statute under which this lien is sought to be enforced was passed on the 9th of February, 1821, and so far as it relates to the present case provides, sec. 1, that after the passage of this act, every carpenter or joiner, &c., shall have a lien for the price of his labor on the building upon which it has been bestowed, or for any materials which he shall have furnished.

Sec. 2. That the contract between such carpenter or joiner and his employer shall be reduced to writing and filed in the clerk’s office of the county within three months from the making thereof.

The lien here given is further protected by the act of the legislature passed December 6, 1830.

All the requisitions of the statute hav-e been complied with, and we have no doubt that the lien attaches by operation of law, and must be enforced. The fact that Buck had no notice of the lien is not legally true. The filing of the contract in the clerk’s office was notice to all the world, and if he did not know it, it was not the fault of the appellee.

It was well urged by the counsel of the appellee, that the claims of the mechanic are favored in law. They are often unlettered men, and courts will uphold the policy of the country in giving their statutes a free interpretation in favor of the laborer. They were made to secure to him the award of his toil, and should not be baffled by any subterfuge.

The decree of the court below must be affirmed with costs.  