| Mo. | Oct 15, 1855
delivered the opinion of the court.
In order to constitute a valid lien in favor of a material man under a contract, not with the owner, but with the contractor, pursuant to the St. Louis mechanics’ lien act of February, 1843, it is essential that the party who desires to acquire the lien should give notice of his intention to the owner within thirty days after the indebtedness accrued, or the .completion of the building or improvements. If, however, the owner or his agent can not be found, a written notice may be placed, as a substitute for the personal notice, upon some conspicuous part of the building, and a copy filed in the proper office with the lien. Of
But the difficulty is that, so far as Brown, the contractor, is concerned, this is a part of the case in which he has no interest, and the owners, the only parties really interested in it, make no objection. It is true, both contractors and owners may be and probably are proper parties to the scire facias — the contractor, because he is interested in the question of indebtedness, being bound to indemnify the owner against this charge upon his property — and the owner, because his property is thereby subjected to the payment of the debt, his interest extending to both debt and lien, as the latter involves the former. It is true that all these parties bring the case here, and join in the assignment of errors ; but the owners do not in' their answer expressly contest the lien on the ground of the want of the thirty days’ notice, nor do they except to any act of the court during the progress of the trial, and they have neither moved for a new trial or in arrest of judgment, and, we presume, do not in fact complain here of the alleged error.
The points, too, made by Brown, that we consider of any weight, are confined exclusively to matters affecting the validity of the lien, and do not touch the extent or validity of the debt;