the direction of the Government. The contract, which was prepared by the Government and signed by the client, without any legal advice, provided a fixed compensation for the architect and further provided for a bond to be furnished by the latter. Realizing that this was a usual provision, the client signed the contract and thought nothing more of the matter, until it became apparent that the unrolling of the customary governmental red tape (it was army red tape at that), would delay the completion of the memorial for many years. The memorial is not yet completed but, each year regularly, the architect receives a bill from the Surety Company which furnished the bond, requesting the payment of the annual premium due thereon. When he took up the matter with the government authorities in charge, they expressed to him their regret at the delay, but carefully set forth a number of perfectly good reasons why, under the law, the Government could not make payment of the premiums, or make good the loss suffered by the architect in connection with them. The Government's representatives agreed with me that theoretically, on the basis on which the matter was proceeding, it might be quite possible that the total premiums paid by the architect on the bond might exceed the amount received by him for his services, if the delay of the Government were to continue. They appreciated the difficulty and showed a desire to do anything which they could to help the architect, but were hampered by the laws and regulations from proceeding as a private individual or a privately controlled corporation could have proceeded. Such a situation has in it elements of humor, which it was a bit difficult, naturally, for the architect to appreciate. We finally arrived at a solution which has straightened out the trouble, but the case remains a very good example of the restrictions which surround

municipal corporations or government agencies, and which necessarily result in placing contractual and business dealings with them in a class by themselves, subject to special rules and requiring special care and consideration.

CHAPTER XI.

THE LIEN OF THE ARCHITECT.

Importance of lien protection.-Its scope and effectiveness.Approval by owner required.-Caution necessary, especially where title to property is not in name of client.

I venture the assertion that not more than forty per cent of the architects practicing today in this country realize that the arcihtect has been accorded protection under the lien laws and given a mechanic's lien on the building upon which his work is done. The extension of the protection of the lien law to architects is not, however, an especially recent development. The lien laws in the better jurisdictions have, for a considerable time, recognized the right of an architect to a lien for the work done. More recently, however, and especially within the last few years, the laws have been so broadened as to give to the architect a degree of protection under the mechanics lien statutes, which he did not theretofore enjoy. In New York, for instance, prior to the Amendment of 1916, an architect was not entitled to a lien, unless he actually supervised the work done. The 1916 law so enlarged the scope of the word "improvement," however, as the latter word is used in the mechanics lien law, that the protection of the law has been extended sufficiently to enable the architect to recover thereunder for the work done in the preparation of the plans and specifications, even though he may not act as the supervising architect. This is in accordance with plain common sense and fairness. The plans and specifications certainly enter

into the erection of any building, just as surely as do the bricks and mortar, the timbers and the plaster work. The basis of a mechanic's lien has always been the improvement of the real estate and, certainly, the plans and specifications which are responsible for the erection of a building, of beauty or utility, contribute in large part to the improvement of the property on which it is erected.

A mechanic's lien is a particularly effective way of enforcing one's rights. The ordinary architect is, of course, well acquainted with the operation of liens, from his experience with contractors and materialmen. He may be pleasantly surprised to learn how efficiently the filing of a simple lien may serve to protect his own rights and enable him to secure payment of a just claim, where the client is not inclined to live up to his obligations. The usual architect's lien applies in the case of the construction of an entire building. The lien applies no less, however, to the case of alterations, and it may be of interest to architects, practicing in larger cities especially, to realize that the lien law has been successfuly applied, to give relief to an architect, where the services involved consisted of changes in the premises of a sub-tenant of a large building.

This point arose in my practice a number of years ago, and I derived a considerable amount of amusement from a case which made some new law in New York on this particular point. The case was in many ways an interesting one, although the owner of the building has never been able to properly appreciate its humor. The architect whom I represented had a client who was one of the tenants occupying a portion of the space of one floor of one of the large New York City office buildings. The tenant employed the architect to plan and supervise various changes in the lay-out of the tenant's offices, the

erection of new partitions and the like. The architect did the work, prepared the plans, presented them to the owner of the building, who approved them, and supervised the work called for. After the work had been done, the client, who had ordered the plans, became insolvent, and it became apparent that the only chance which the architect had to recover the fee due him lay in the enforcement of a lien against the building. We filed a lien for the amount due him accordingly. The effect on the owner was quite electrical. He was, without qualification, one of the maddest men that I have ever seen. To tell the truth, I did not blame him in the least, and I never pass the building, to this day, that I do not smile at the thought of his indignation, when he learned that a lien had been filed against the property for alterations made by a tenant and agreed to by him as a favor to the latter. The approval of the plans by the owner, coupled with the fact that we were able to show that the partitions were not simply temporary, but were joined to the structure in a manner sufficient to bring the improvement within the scope of the statute, enabled us to sustain the lien. The owner appeared personally in court and fought the matter to a finish, but the court awarded judgment in favor of my client, and the owner finally settled with him for the work done. The pleasant thing about the mechanic's lien, from the point of view of the architect, is, of course, the fact that the claim is secured, and that, if judgment be recovered, he may be reasonably certain that he will be paid, either from the proceeds of the sale of the property or by the bonding company which may have bonded the lien.

The successful enforcement of a mechanic's lien by the architect must depend primarily upon the approval by the owner of the work done. Unless the