#### Albert Lorenz and Arthur Lorenz, trading as Lorenz Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Harry Bloom et al., trading as Nidetz & Schnitzer, and Bernhard W. Berger, Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 20,644.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Mechanics' liens, § 147 * —when proceedings to enforce me premature. A suit to enforce a sub-contractor’s lien brought six days after service of notice of lien on the owner of the premises is premature and should be dismissed without prejudice.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Opinion filed October 6, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Albert Lorenz and Arthur Lorenz, co-partners, trading as Lorenz Brothers, against Harry Bloom, M. Nidetz and L. Schnitzer, copartners, trading as Nidetz & Schnitzer, and Bernhard W. Berger, under the Mechanic’s Lien Act of 1903 (J. & A. ¶ 7139 et seq.), to recover $435, with interest thereon from May 17, 1913, alleged to be due to the plaintiffs from the defendants for labor and material furnished by the plaintiffs as subcontractors. The case was tried before the court without a jury, the issues were found against the plaintiffs, and judgment was entered on the finding. This writ of error followed.

D. E. McCracken, for plaintiffs in error; J. H. Perkinson, of counsel.

Louis F. Jacobson, for defendants in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

*412. Mechanics’ hens, § 147 * —what is effect of premature suit. The fact that a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien is prematurely brought does not destroy the lien of the plaintiffs.