Opinion
[No. 379, September Term, 1963.]
Decided June 22, 1964.
MECHANICS' LIENS — Notice Of Intention To File — Evidence Held Sufficient To Enable Chancellor To Find That Service Of Notice Upon Appellants Was Timely — Testimony Was Conflicting, And It Was Chancellor's Function As Trier Of Facts To Decide Which Was The More Credible And Reliable. pp. 331-332
Decided June 22, 1964.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (SACHSE, J.).
Bill of complaint by Peter Lisowsky and Norma Lisowsky, his wife, to have declared null and void a mechanic's lien filed by the J.F. Johnson Lumber Company. From a decree directing enforcement of the lien, the complainants appeal.
Affirmed, with costs.
The cause was argued before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
Carl H. Lehmann, Jr., for the appellants.
John A. Blondell, with whom were Grafton Lee Brown, Jr., and Brown Blondell on the brief, for the appellee.
In this mechanic's lien case the parties have agreed that the only issue is whether notice of intention to file the lien was given within ninety days, as required by Code (1957, 1963 Cum. Supp.), Article 63, § 11. The chancellor resolved the issue in the affirmative and decreed the enforcement of the lien. He was presented with conflicting testimony concerning the date of service of notice upon the appellants, and of course it was his function as the trier of facts to decide which was the more credible and reliable. Maryland Rule 886 a and cases annotated establish this, and also that this Court must find that the lower court was clearly in error before we will reverse the judgment below. Since our review of the evidence convinces us that it was sufficient to enable the chancellor to find that the notice was timely served the decree must be affirmed.
Decree affirmed, with costs.