Miller and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss Trane's petition. The trial court, relying on Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707 (1965), held that the lien statement was defective in that it lacked a proper verification as required by K.S.A. 60-1102. Our mechanic's lien statute, K.S.A. 60-1102, provides in part:

       (Image Omitted)         Attached were itemized invoices on the letterhead of Murray Distributors, making no reference to Ms&sB Investment, Inc.        In finding the verification insufficient the trial court relied on Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Limes&sPortland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707 (1965). We believe that reliance misplaced.

It has also been stated more generally that the verification requirement means the lien statement must be sworn to by the claimant before an officer having authority by law to administer and certify oaths and affirmations. Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime s&sPortland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 636, 400 P.2d 707 (1965). The verification must be absolute (Lewis, 10 Kan.App.2d at 102, 692 P.2d 397) and the lack of a verification in the statement filed necessarily defeats the lien.

E.g. Potter v. Conley, 83 Kan. 676, 112 P. 608, 609 (1911); Bridgeport Mach. Co. v. McKnab, 136 Kan. 781, 18 P.2d 186, 188 (1933). Clark Lumber Co. v. Passig, 184 Kan. 667, 339 P.2d 280 (1959); Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime P.C. Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707 (1965). Bridgeport Mach. Co. v. McKnab, 136 Kan. 781, 18 P.2d 186, at 188.

A lien claimant must secure a lien under the statute or not at all.Buchanan v. Overley, 39 Kan. App. 2d 171, 178 P.3d 53, 57 (2008) (quoting Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707, 709 (1965)). Because Madison's lien was vitally defective as filed, it cannot be found to be partially valid.

While the provision of the law relating to liens for labor and material are to be construed liberally and in the interests of justice, yet such liberal construction does not permit the terms of the statute itself to be disregarded. As the Kansas Court declared in Ekstrom United Supply Co., a Corp., v. Ash Grove Lime Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 635, 400 P.2d 707, 709: "It is a settled rule in this state that equitable considerations do not ordinarily give rise to a mechanic's lien.

Colman v. Goodnow, 36 Minn. 9, 29 N.W. 338 (1886); Crockett v. Sampson, 439 S.W.2d 355, 360 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969). Nor can the error in executing an acknowledgment instead of a jurat be cured by proof at the trial that the claim of lien was in fact sworn to before being placed upon file. Finane v. Las Vegas Hotel Imp. Co., 3 N.M. [Gild.] 411, 5 P. 725 (1885); Colman v. Goodnow, supra; Metcalf v. Prescott, 10 Mont. 283, 25 P. 1037 (1891); Reeves v. Kansas Co-op. Wheat Mk't Ass'n, 136 Kan. 306, 309, 15 P.2d 446, 448 (1932); Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime P.C. Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707 (1965). "The notice in question to which a corporate acknowledgment was subjoined, but no other certificate of oath, was not verified in accordance with the statute.

Nor is appellant equitably estopped from asserting the defense of untimely filing of the lien. In Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707, we stated: "It is a settled rule in this state that equitable considerations do not ordinarily give rise to a mechanic's lien. Being created by statute, a mechanic's lien can only arise under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed by the statute.

Before considering their contentions in detail we pause to repeat what this court has said on past occasions: Mechanics' liens are statutory in origin and one who claims such a lien has the burden of bringing himself within the purview of the statutes which create them. ( Bell v. Hernandez, 139 Kan. 216, 30 P.2d 1101; Gaudreau v. Smith, 141 Kan. 123, 40 P.2d 365.) There is no privity of contract between a subcontractor and a property owner, and the former can obtain a lien only by complying with the statutory provisions. ( Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707; D.J. Fair Lumber Co. v. Karlin, 199 Kan. 366, 430 P.2d 222.) We proceed to a discussion of item (1): The name of the owner.

On February 25, 1966, the plaintiff filed its petition to foreclose the mechanic's lien. In preparing its petition the plaintiff apparently noted Reeves v. Kansas Coop. Wheat Mk't Ass'n, 136 Kan. 306, 15 P.2d 446, where it was held that a lien statement which was "acknowledged" instead of "verified" was invalid, and Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707, which held that the failure of a subcontractor to verify its lien statement pursuant to G.S. 1961 Supp. 60-1403, was fatal to recovery, since paragraph 7 of the petition states: "That in the event the court finds that the materialmen's lien attached hereto was not properly verified, the Plaintiff requests authority to amend said lien in accordance with K.S.A. 60-1105 ( b) so that the materialmen's lien will conform to the requirements of K.S.A. 60-1102 and K.S.A. 60-1103."