Dowd H. Price Fixture Co. v. Flowers and Monroe, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Dowd H. Price Fixture Co. v. Flowers and Monroe, Inc.

175 S.E.2d 695, 9 N.C. App. 262, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1332

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 5, 1970

Docket7026DC277

StatusPublished

This text of 175 S.E.2d 695 (Dowd H. Price Fixture Co. v. Flowers and Monroe, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dowd H. Price Fixture Co. v. Flowers and Monroe, Inc., 175 S.E.2d 695, 9 N.C. App. 262, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1332 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Vaughn, J.

The judgments appealed from were entered on 11 December 1969, prior to the effective date of the repeal of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Chapter 1 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. In view of the repeal of these statutes which formerly governed complaints, answers and demurrers, we do not deem it necessary to review them in order to dispose of the present case. It suffices to say that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of the corporate defendant Flowers and Monroe, Inc., and Horace M. Flowers and William K. Monroe, Jr., individual defendants, because of misjoinder of causes and parties. Among other things the complaint alleges an obligation by the individual defendants and the assumption of this obligation by corporate defendant.

Even when we give the complaint its most liberal construction, no cause of action is stated against defendant Britt. In effect plaintiff alleges that Britt was the owner of the building and knew plaintiff was making the improvements at the instance of the other defendants. Mere knowledge by the owner that his lessee is causing improvements to be made to the property does not obligate the owner to the person furnishing the labor or materials, absent evidence that the owner allowed the improvements to be made after having reason to believe that .such person was looking to him for payments. Air Conditioning *264 Co. v. Douglass, 241 N.C. 170, 84 S.E. 2d 828; Brown v. Ward, 221 N.C. 344, 20 S.E. 2d 324.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed as to James N. Britt, Jr., and is reversed as to defendants Flowers and Monroe, Inc., Horace M. Flowers and William K. Monroe.

Affirmed in part.

Reversed in part.

Campbell and Britt, JJ., concur.

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

Vaughn, J.

The judgments appealed from were entered on 11 December 1969, prior to the effective date of the repeal of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Chapter 1 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. In view of the repeal of these statutes which formerly governed complaints, answers and demurrers, we do not deem it necessary to review them in order to dispose of the present case. It suffices to say that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of the corporate defendant Flowers and Monroe, Inc., and Horace M. Flowers and William K. Monroe, Jr., individual defendants, because of misjoinder of causes and parties. Among other things the complaint alleges an obligation by the individual defendants and the assumption of this obligation by corporate defendant.

Even when we give the complaint its most liberal construction, no cause of action is stated against defendant Britt. In effect plaintiff alleges that Britt was the owner of the building and knew plaintiff was making the improvements at the instance of the other defendants. Mere knowledge by the owner that his lessee is causing improvements to be made to the property does not obligate the owner to the person furnishing the labor or materials, absent evidence that the owner allowed the improvements to be made after having reason to believe that .such person was looking to him for payments. Air Conditioning *264 Co. v. Douglass, 241 N.C. 170, 84 S.E. 2d 828; Brown v. Ward, 221 N.C. 344, 20 S.E. 2d 324.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed as to James N. Britt, Jr., and is reversed as to defendants Flowers and Monroe, Inc., Horace M. Flowers and William K. Monroe.

Affirmed in part.

Reversed in part.

Campbell and Britt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E.2d 695, 9 N.C. App. 262, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowd-h-price-fixture-co-v-flowers-and-monroe-inc-ncctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack