Gainey v. . Gainey

165 S.E. 547, 203 N.C. 190, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 345

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: September 21, 1932
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The plaintiff recovered in the justice’s court, but, on appeal to the Superior Court, his claim for lien was denied and the action dismissed as to the landlord, Jesse B. Lee. His Honor was of opinion that, under the decision in Cook v. Cobb, 101 N. C., 68, 1 S. E., 700, the plaintiff’s claim, or notice of lien, was not made out in sufficient detail, “specifying the . . . labor performed, and the time thereof,” the wages he was to receive, how and when payable, etc. And further, it was not made to appear that said purported notice of claim was filed “in the office of the nearest justice of peace” as required by C. S., 2469.

We cannot say there was error in the ruling. Hdw. House v. Percival, ante, 6; Construction Co. v. Journal, 198 N. C., 273, 151 S. E., 631. At least it has not been made to appear, and the burden is on appellant to show error. King v. Elliott, 197 N. C., 93, 147 S. E., 701, is not in conflict with Coolc v. Cobb, supra, nor with our present holding.

Affirmed.