Argument for Appellant. 231 U.S. A mechanics' lien is a creature of the statute, and can only be obtained by a strict compliance with the letter of the law. Marston v. Stickney, 55 N. H. 383; Jacobs v. Knapp, 50 N. H. 71, 80; Bicknell v. Trickey, 34 Maine, 273, 281; Trask v. Searle, 121 Massachusetts, 229; Gale v. Blaikie, 129 Massachusetts, 206; Wendell v. Abbott, 43 N. H. 68, 73; Ellis v. Lull, 45 N. H. 419; Pierce v. Cabot, 159 Massachusetts, 202; Street Lumber Co. v. Sullivan, 87 N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 905; General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Chaplin, 183 Massachusetts, 375; Grainger & Co. v. Riley, 201 Fed. Rep. 901, 903; Street Lumber Co. v. Sullivan, 201 Massachusetts, 484; Whalen v. Collins, 164 Massachusetts, 146, 150; 20 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 2d ed., 269, 277; 27 Cyc. 20. The lien was not recognized at common law. Van Stone v. Company, 142 U. S. 128, 136. Under the New Hampshire and similar statutes, the lien suit must be based upon an express contract with the owner, in existence when the service is performed. It cannot be based upon a quantum meruit, or implied assumpsit. Copeland v. Kehoe, 67 Alabama, 594; Rowley v. James, 31 Illinois, 298; Parker v. Anthony, 4 Gray, 289; Sanderson v. Taft, 6 Gray, 533; Sly v. Pattee, 58 N. H. 102; Pike v. Scott, 60 N. H. 469; Marston v. Stickney, 60 N. H. 112; Jacobs v. Knapp, 50 N. H. 71, 78; Dressel v. French, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 350; Ellenwood v. Burgess, 144 Massachusetts, 534. In case there is an express contract, there can be no lien unless the claimant show one of three things: That he has performed the contract: Rochford v. Rochford, 192 Massachusetts, 231; General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Chaplin, 183 Massachusetts, 375; Rome Hotel Co. v. Warlick, 87 Georgia, 34; Thomas v. University, 71 Illinois, 310; Bohem v. Seabury, 141 Pa. St. 594; Moritz v. Larsen, 70 Wisconsin, 569; Company v. Berghoefer, 103 Wisconsin, 359; Cahill v. Heuser, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 292; Paturzo v. 231 U.S. Argument for Appellant. Shuldiner, 110 N. Y. Supp. 137; Gunther v. Bennett, 72 Maryland, 384; Brick Co. v. Spilman, 76 Maryland, 337; Derrickson v. Edwards, 29 N. J. Law, 468; McGraw v. Godfrey, 16 Abb. Prac. (N. S.) 358. That he has been prevented from doing so by the other party: Howes v. Reliance Wire Co., 46 Minnesota, 44; Knight v. Norris, 13 Minnesota, 473; Dennistoun v. McAllister, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 729; Kenney v. Sherman, 28 Illinois, 520; Charnley v. Honig, 74 Wisconsin, 163; Hutchins v. Bautch, 123 Wisconsin, 394; Catlin v. Douglas, 33 Fed. Rep. 569; Sproessig v. Keutel, 17 N. Y. Supp. 839. That performance has been waived: Cahill v. Heuser, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 292; Floyd v. Rathledge, 41 Ill. App. 370; McCue v. Whitwell, 156 Massachusetts, 205; Stewart v. McQuaide, 48 Pa. St. 191; 20 Am. & Eng. Ency. (2d ed.), 366. See also to the same effect Hains v. Graham, 111 S. W. Rep. (Ark.) 984; Pippy v. Winslow, 125 Pac. Rep. (Or.) 298; Klaub v. Vokonn, 169 Ill. App. 434; Evans v. Woodley, 138 N. W. Rep. (Mich.) 275. The lienor willfully failed to complete the shutters, at an estimated expense of $1,000 and damage to that amount accrued thereby. The completion of the contract was not prevented although it was somewhat delayed by the owner; performance of the contract was not waived. The only excuse for the failure to complete the contract was failure of the owner to make its payments under the contract. Breach by one party is no excuse for failure to perform by the other party. Geary v. Bangs, 33 Ill. App. 582, 584, 585; Palm and Robertson v. R. R. Co., 18 Illinois, 217; Kenney v. Sherman, 28 Illinois, 520, 523; West v. Bechtel, 125 Michigan, 144; Winchester v. Newton, 2 Allen (Mass.), 492; Dox v. Dey, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 356, 361; M'Grath v. Horgan, 76 N. Y. Supp. 412; Osgood v. Bauder, 75 Iowa, 550, 558; Myer v. Wheeler, 65 Iowa, 390; Hanson v. Heat Argument for Appellant. 231 U.S. ing Co., 73 Iowa, 79; Bianchi v. Hughes, 124 California, 24, 27; 3 Page, Contracts, § 1490 (7); Mersey Co. v. Naylor, 9 App. Cas. (H. of L.) 434; Cox v. McLaughlin, 54 California, 605; Campbell v. McLeod, 24 Nova Scotia, 66; Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 417, 435; Howe v. Howe & Owen Co., 154 Fed. Rep. 820, 826; Kauffman v. Raeder, 108 Fed. Rep. 171, 181; Paturzo v. Shuldiner, 110 N. Y. Supp. 137; Boon v. Eygre, 1 H. Bl. 273 (Lord Mansfield). Insolvency of one party is no excuse for abandoning work by the other party. Pardee v. Kanady, 100 N. Y. 121; Vandegrift v. Cowles Eng. Co., 161 N. Y. 435; Phenix Nat. Bank v. Waterbury, 197 N. Y. 161; Ins. Com. v. Ins. Co., 68 N. H. 51; Bank Comm'rs v. Trust Co., 69 N. H. 621. In New York this point has been considered and maintained more often than anywhere else. N. E. Iron Co. v. Gilbert E. R. R., 91 N. Y. 153; Devlin v. Mayor, 63 N. Y. 8; Merchant v. Rawson, 1 Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 123; Underhill v. North Am. Co., 31 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 34; In re Carter, 47 N. Y. Supp. 383. See also Hobbs v. Columbia Co., 157 Massachusetts, 109; Jewett Pub. Co. v. Butler, 159 Massachusetts, 517; Lumber Co. v. Co., 89 Mo. App. 141; In re Edwards, 8 Ch. App. (Eng.) 289, 293; McConnell & Drummond v. Hewes, 50 W. Va. 33; Brassel v. Troxel, 68 Ill. App. 131. For additional authorities recognizing this principle, see Boorman v. Nash, 9 B. & C. (Eng.) 145; Wald's Pollock on Contracts (3d ed.), 355, n. 88; Page on Contracts, § 1449, p. 2243; Benjamin on Sales, p. 808; Lumber Co. v. Glasgow Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 863. The owner did not refuse to make its payments under the contract. The finding that the architect's certificate for $25,000 was given September 29th, is based on incompetent evidence. Nothing is due under the contract. Under the express 231 U. S. Argument for Appellant. terms of the contract, payments become due only upon the performance of certain unperformed conditions. Nothing can be recovered under a contract until the contract has been complied with. Robinson v. Crowninshield, 1 N. H. 76; Currier v. Railroad, 34 N. H. 398; Danforth v. Freeman, 69 N. H. 466; Wadleigh v. Sutton, 6 N. H. 15; Dame v. Woods, 73 N. H. 222. Nothing being due under the contract, no recovery can be had in the lien suit. 20 Am. & Eng. Ency. (2d ed.) 520. As the creditor can maintain no action against the debtor until his demand is due and payable, he cannot until that time secure his lien by attachment. The cause of action and the perfected enforceable lien accrue to him at the same moment. Kendall v. Pickard, 67 N. H. 470; Kihlburg v. United States, 97 U. S. 398; Martinsburg Co. v. March, 114 U. S. 549; Palmer v. Clark, 106 Massachusetts, 373; Chicago &c. Co. v. Price, 138 U. S. 185; Harmon v. Ashmead, 60 California, 439; Pitt v. Acosta, 18 Florida, 270; Thomas v. Turner, 16 Maryland, 105; Lauer v. Dunn, 115 N. Y. 405; Kinney v. Hudnut, 3 Illinois, 472; Preusser v. Florence, 4 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 136; Schroth v. Black, 50 Ill. App. 168. While as a general rule if there has been an honest endeavor to complete the contract, and substantial compliance with its terms, a lien may be enforced, 20 Am. & Eng. Ency., 2d ed., 366-367; 27 Cyc. 85, a willful omission in the performance of the contract, unless trivial, will preclude the assertion of a lien. 20 Am. & Eng. Ency. (2d ed.) 367; 27 Cyc. 85, n. 27; Van Clief v. Van Vechten, 130 N. Y. 571, 579; Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minnesota, 357; D'Arnato v. Gentile, 173 N. Y. 596; S. C., 54 App. Div. 625; Weeks v. O'Brien, 59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 28; May v. Menton, 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 737; Kohl v. Fleming, 21 Misc. 690; Fox v. Davidson, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 159; Spence v. Ham, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 379; Anderson v. Todd, 8 N. Dak. 158; Argument for Appellant. 231 U.S. Federal Trust Co. v. Guingues, 74 Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 652, 654; Braseth v. State Bank, 12 No. Dak. 486; Wade v. Haycock, 25 Pa. St. 382; Gillespie Co. v. Wilson, 123 Pa. St. 19; Sherry v. Madler, 123 Wisconsin, 621; Roane v. Murphy, 96 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 782; Hahn v. Bonacum, 76 Nebraska, 837; Gillis v. Cobe, 177 Massachusetts, 584; Burke v. Coyne, 188 Massachusetts, 401; Schindler v. Green, 82 Pac. Rep. (Cal. App.) 341; Smith v. Ruggeriero, 173 N. Y. 614; King v. Moore, 70 N. Y. Supp. 6. The architect's certificate was essential. 20 Am. & Eng. Ency., 2d ed., 370; 30 Id. 1205, 1237; Addison on Contracts, § 394; 27 Cyc. 87, n. 38; Hanley v. Walker, 8 L. R. A. 207; Packard v. Van Schoick, 58 Illinois, 79; Coey v. Lehman, 79 Illinois, 173; Barney v. Giles, 120 Illinois, 154; Arnold v. Bournique, 144 Illinois, 132; Kirtland v. Moore, 40 N. J. Eq. 106; Wolf v. Michaelis, 27 Ill. App. 336; Provost v. Shirk, 223 Illinois, 468; Boots v. Steinberg, 100 Michigan, 134; Boden v. Mayer, 95 Wisconsin, 65; Forster Lumber Co. v. Atkinson, 94 Wisconsin, 578; Nesbit v. Braker, 93 N. Y. Supp. 856; Federal Trust Co. v. Guingues, 74 Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 652, 656. Where a contractor engages to do different kinds of work under the same contract for a lump sum, upon part of which he is entitled to a lien and the other part not, no lien attaches in his favor. Libbey v. Tidden, 192 Massachusetts, 175, 177; Morrison v. Minot, 5 Allen, 403; Brewster v. Wyman, 5 Allen, 405; Graves v. Bemis, 8 Allen, 573; Getty v. Ames, 30 Oregon, 573; Allen v. Elwert, 29 Oregon, 444. For cases recognizing this general doctrine, see Driscoll v. Hill, 11 Allen, 154; Angier v. Distilling Co., 178 Massachusetts, 163; General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Chaplin, 183 Massachusetts, 375; Evans Marble Co. v. Trust Co., 101 Maryland, 210; McLain v. Hutton, 131 California, 132; Peatman v. Light & Power Co., 105 Iowa, 1; Adler v. Exposition Co., 126 Illinois, 373; McMaster v. Merrick, |