Broyhill v. . Gaither

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Broyhill v. . Gaither

26 S.E. 31, 119 N.C. 443

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 26 S.E. 31 (Broyhill v. . Gaither) 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

Broyhill v. . Gaither, 26 S.E. 31, 119 N.C. 443 (N.C. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The plaintiff having built a house for the defendant was entitled to his mechanic’s lien therefor, not merely for the value of the labor expended but for the contract price of the house, (The Code, Sec. 1781,) which lien is superior to the homestead. Const., Art. 10, Sec. 4. "When the contractor undertakes to put up a building and complete the same, the contract is indivisible and his “ mechanic’s lien ” embraces the entire outlay, whether in labor or material, being for “ work done on the premises,” i. e. for betterments on it. The “ laborer’s lien ” is solely for labor performed. The mechanic’s lien is broader and includes the “ work done,” i. e. the “ building built ” or superstructure placed on the premises. Merrigan v. Engl ish, 9 Mont., 113, 124 ; Phelps v. Stray, 32 Neb., 19.

It is otherwise when there is simply material furnished which the owner places upon the building either himself or by employing others. The “ material lien ” is by virtue of the statute only, and does not come under the constitutional priority given to the “ mechanic’s lien for work done on the premises ” over the homestead exemption. Cumming v. Bloodworth, 87 N. C., 83.

The house being built upon an undivided and entire tract of 80 acres in the country, the mechanic’s lien was upon the whole tract, especially as it is found as a fact, *446 or not denied, that the “house alone would be of comparatively little value, as no one would wish the house apart from the land.” It was no segregation or division of the house from the tract that “ the house and improvements were enclosed in a fence including about three acres.” The lien is on the whole tract, but it should be divided if practicable and desired by the defendant in making sale, and the parts sold' in such order as the homesteader may elect, so that it may be the lien will be discharged without exhausting the tract, and the part preferred by the debtor not subjected to sale. Thus modified, the judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Clark, J.:

The plaintiff having built a house for the defendant was entitled to his mechanic’s lien therefor, not merely for the value of the labor expended but for the contract price of the house, (The Code, Sec. 1781,) which lien is superior to the homestead. Const., Art. 10, Sec. 4. "When the contractor undertakes to put up a building and complete the same, the contract is indivisible and his “ mechanic’s lien ” embraces the entire outlay, whether in labor or material, being for “ work done on the premises,” i. e. for betterments on it. The “ laborer’s lien ” is solely for labor performed. The mechanic’s lien is broader and includes the “ work done,” i. e. the “ building built ” or superstructure placed on the premises. Merrigan v. Engl ish, 9 Mont., 113, 124 ; Phelps v. Stray, 32 Neb., 19.

It is otherwise when there is simply material furnished which the owner places upon the building either himself or by employing others. The “ material lien ” is by virtue of the statute only, and does not come under the constitutional priority given to the “ mechanic’s lien for work done on the premises ” over the homestead exemption. Cumming v. Bloodworth, 87 N. C., 83.

The house being built upon an undivided and entire tract of 80 acres in the country, the mechanic’s lien was upon the whole tract, especially as it is found as a fact, *446 or not denied, that the “house alone would be of comparatively little value, as no one would wish the house apart from the land.” It was no segregation or division of the house from the tract that “ the house and improvements were enclosed in a fence including about three acres.” The lien is on the whole tract, but it should be divided if practicable and desired by the defendant in making sale, and the parts sold' in such order as the homesteader may elect, so that it may be the lien will be discharged without exhausting the tract, and the part preferred by the debtor not subjected to sale. Thus modified, the judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 S.E. 31, 119 N.C. 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broyhill-v-gaither-nc-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack