Clark v. . Edwards

25 S.E. 794, 119 N.C. 115
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 794 (Clark v. . Edwards) 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
Clark v. . Edwards, 25 S.E. 794, 119 N.C. 115 (N.C. 1896).

Opinion

ClaeK, J. :

It is true, under Section 1789 of The Gode, that where a mechanic’s or laborer’s lien, or lien for material, is filed as required, it dates bach and takes priority of all liens attaching, and against all purchases for value (though without notice) made subsequent to the beginning of the work, or furnishing the first mateiial. Burr v. Maultsby, 99 N. C., 263; Lumber Company v. Hotel Company, 109 N. C., 658. But such lien is only good for the amount due the contractor, laborer or material man, and the sub-contractor can be put in no better condition. As defendant’s counsel said forcibly and pertinently on the argument, the sub-contractor can only sue into the contract. Accordingly The Gode, Section 1801, affords the sub-contractor giving notice of his claim a right to a lien “ not exceeding the amount due the original contractor at the time of notice given,” and Section 1802 confers on the sub-contractor the right to enforce such lien if the owner fails “ to retain ” the amount thereof “ out of the amount due the said contractor.” In this case the plaintiff, who was sub-contractor, did not give the owner of the property notice of his claim till after the contractor, who was paid up to that date, had failed in business and abandoned the work. Neither at that time nor at any time thereafter was anything due the contractor — the owner completing the building himself. There was therefore no sum due the contractor out of which the owner should have “ retained ” the plaintiff’s claim. The plain language and intent of the statute controvert the plaintiff’s contention, winch, if correct, would prevent owmers from paying anything to contractors till twelve months after the completion of their work. The mere fact that laborers and sub-contractors are *120 working on the building is not notice to the owner not to pay out to the contractor till it is ascertained how much is due by the contractor to each and every sub-contractor, laborer, material man, &c. The statute requires that the sub-contractor must give notice, and till he does this he does not have a lien, and the owner is justified in making payment to the contractor.

No Error.

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

Related

Michael Flynn Manufacturing Co. v. J. L. Coe Construction Co.
131 S.E.2d 487 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Schnepp v. . Richardson
22 S.E.2d 555 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Economy Pumps, Inc. v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
17 S.E.2d 639 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Rathburn v. Landess
129 So. 738 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Piedmont Electric Co. v. Vance Plumbing & Electric Co.
149 S.E. 858 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
Norfolk Building Supplies Co. v. Elizabeth City Hospital Co.
97 S.E. 146 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
Borden Brick & Tile Co. v. Pulley
84 S.E. 513 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Orinoco Supply Co. v. Masonic & Eastern Star Home
79 S.E. 964 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Stoltze v. Hurd
128 N.W. 115 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1910)
North Dakota Lumber Co. v. Bulger
125 N.W. 833 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1910)
Hall v. . Jones
66 S.E. 350 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Dunavant v. Caldwell & Northern Railroad
29 S.E. 837 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 S.E. 794, 119 N.C. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-edwards-nc-1896.