Russell

(after making the foregoing statement). Did the court err in sustaining the demurrer and in entering judgment against the appellants?

The act relating to mechanics’ liens should be liberally construed. The evident spirit and purpose of the act is *275 to do substantial justice to all parties who may he affected by its provisions, and the courts should avoid unfriendly strictness and mere technicality. Springer Land Ass’n v. Ford, 168 U.S. 513 , 18 S.Ct. 170 , 42 L.Ed. 562 ; Salt Lake H. Co. v. Chainman M. & E. Co. (C.C.) 128 F. 509 ; Hooven v. Featherstone’s Sons, 111 F. 81, 91 , 49 C.C.A. 229 . But in following this rule courts should always be careful not to impair the force of the statute or fritter away its meaning by construction. Davis v. Alvord, 94 U.S. 545, 549 , 24 L.Ed. 283 ; Malter v. Falcon M. Co., 18 Nev. 209, 212 , 2 P. 50 . A mechanic’s lien is purely of statutory creation, and can only be maintained by a substantial observance and compliance with the provisions of the statute. Whatever is made necessary to the existence of the lien must be performed, or the attempt to create it will be futile. A substantial adherence to the terms of the statute in the notice of…