Mechanics’ Liens—Notice op Non-Liability op Owner—Forbidding Work apter Completion.—In an action to foreclose mechanics’ liens, where the owner of the property failed to give the statutory notice of non-liability, and merely undertook to forbid the work after its completion, it is obvious that the owner could not forbid that which had been already accomplished.

Id.—Existence op Special. Holidays—Duty op Owner..—Conceding, without deciding, that the existence of special holidays declared by the governor could postpone the necessity for the posting of a notice by the owner in order to avoid a lien, the owner would be.still under the necessity of posting notice upon the first secular day after her discovery of the activities of the laborers and materialmen, who subsequently became lien claimants.

Id.—Legal Holidays not Curtailing Privilege op Owner.—Under section 1192 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the owner had the privilege of objecting formally to the work within ten days after the owner’s discovery that it was under way, and the intervening holidays would not curtail that privilege.

Id.—Prima Facie Case op Lien Claimants—Burden op Proop upon Owner.—The lien claimants made a prima facie case by proof that the owner posted no notice avoiding his liability within ten days after knowledge that the work had fully begun upon the owner’s property. If the holidays extended the owner’s time, and the owner made due and formal protest by posting such notice after they were ended, that would be matter for the owner to show afiirmatively, which he failed to show.

Id.—Doctrine op Code Provision—Estoppel op Owner—Equitable Lien.—The doctrine upon which section 1192 of the Code of Civil Procedure rests is that of estoppel, which is the underlying principle of the entire theory of the mechanics’ lien. The owner of real property having either by his own act or that of another with his consent or knowledge, procured the improvement of such property, and received the benefit of the labor or material of another thereby, is deemed to have created an equitable lien upon the premises to secure the payment of the value of such labor or materials.

Id.—Knowledge of Owner—Putting upon Inquiry—Failure to Give Notice.—The knowledge upon the owner’s part which is sufficient to place him in default for failure to give the notice required need not be absolute. It is enough that it would put a prudent man upon inquiry.

Id.—“Knowledge of Construction”—Time of Giving Notice.'—-The “knowledge of construction” required by the statute must be construed to mean knowledge of the progress of the work of construction, which could not have been earlier than the commencement of the work. There is no limitation with respect to the stage of the work at the time at which the notice must be posted, and if given under the former statute, within three days after knowledge of the construction has been received, it would be timely on any day when the work on the improvement was in progress.

Id.—Support of Findings—Absence of Error.—It is held the findings made by the court in favor of the lien claimants and against the owner of the property, are sustained by the evidence, and were proper under the pleadings; and that no error appears in the record.