Broadfoot Iron Works, Inc. v. Bugg

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Broadfoot Iron Works, Inc. v. Bugg

180 S.E. 62, 208 N.C. 284, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 387

DecidedMay 22, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.E. 62 (Broadfoot Iron Works, Inc. v. Bugg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broadfoot Iron Works, Inc. v. Bugg, 180 S.E. 62, 208 N.C. 284, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 387 (N.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Oueiam.

There was error in the refusal of defendants’ motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence. There was no evidence tending to show that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the repairs made on their property by the plaintiff, at the request of their lessee, and while the property was in his possession.

This is not an action to recover on a lien on personal property under the provisions of 0. S., 2435. The statute is applicable only when the property repaired by an artisan or mechanic is in his possession. In such case, the artisan or mechanic may retain possession of the property which he has repaired, at the request of “the owner or legal possessor,” until his just and reasonable charges for his work and materials have been paid. Johnson v. Yates, 183 N. C., 24, 110 S. E., 630, is readily distinguished from the instant case. In that case it was held that the mechanic who had repaired an automobile at the request of a mortgagor had the right to retain possession of the automobile as against the mortgagee until his reasonable charges had been paid.

The judgment is

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Oueiam.

There was error in the refusal of defendants’ motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence. There was no evidence tending to show that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the repairs made on their property by the plaintiff, at the request of their lessee, and while the property was in his possession.

This is not an action to recover on a lien on personal property under the provisions of 0. S., 2435. The statute is applicable only when the property repaired by an artisan or mechanic is in his possession. In such case, the artisan or mechanic may retain possession of the property which he has repaired, at the request of “the owner or legal possessor,” until his just and reasonable charges for his work and materials have been paid. Johnson v. Yates, 183 N. C., 24, 110 S. E., 630, is readily distinguished from the instant case. In that case it was held that the mechanic who had repaired an automobile at the request of a mortgagor had the right to retain possession of the automobile as against the mortgagee until his reasonable charges had been paid.

The judgment is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E. 62, 208 N.C. 284, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadfoot-iron-works-inc-v-bugg-nc-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack