Goldston v. RANDOLPH MACHINE TOOL COMPANY

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Goldston v. RANDOLPH MACHINE TOOL COMPANY

95 S.E.2d 455, 245 N.C. 226, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 546

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 12, 1956

Docket527

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 95 S.E.2d 455 (Goldston v. RANDOLPH MACHINE TOOL COMPANY) 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

Goldston v. RANDOLPH MACHINE TOOL COMPANY, 95 S.E.2d 455, 245 N.C. 226, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 546 (N.C. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

HiggiNS, J.

The plaintiff alleged and offered evidence tending to show (1) he performed labor and furnished material as subcontractor in the construction of a new dwelling which the corporate defendant contracted to build for the individual defendants; (2) the contractor failed to pay for the work done; (3) the plaintiff filed a claim with the individual defendants, or their agent, as provided in G.S. 44-6 to G.S. 44-9, before they completed payment to the contractor; (4) they failed and refused to pay the plaintiff his pro rata share of the amount due on the contract.

• The plaintiff’s evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to him, is sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether he filed his claim in time to share in the payments made to the subcontractors, or if a proper claim was not filed, whether the defendants’ agent waived the requirement. Pumps, Inc., v. Woolworth Co., 220 N.C. 499, 17 S.E. *228 2d 639; Mfg. Co. v. Holladay, 178 N.C. 417, 100 S.E. 597; Foundry Co. v. Aluminum Co., 172 N.C. 704, 90 S.E. 923.

The defendants constituted Attorney Miller their agent to settle the claims by pro rating the payments among the subcontractors. The plaintiff had the right to show by Mr. Miller, if he could, that the claim was filed or that filing was waived. There is nothing to indicate the examination would relate to any confidential communications. When the court refused to permit the examination, the plaintiff had no opportunity to ask competent questions and to have the answers placed in the record. This was error.

As is customary in reversing a nonsuit, we refrain from discussing the evidence, except to the extent necessary to show the reason for the conclusion reached. Harrison v. Kapp, 241 N.C. 408, 85 S.E. 2d 337; Pavone v. Merion, 242 N.C. 594, 89 S.E. 2d 108. The judgment of involuntary nonsuit is

Reversed.

JohNson, J., not sitting.

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

HiggiNS, J.

The plaintiff alleged and offered evidence tending to show (1) he performed labor and furnished material as subcontractor in the construction of a new dwelling which the corporate defendant contracted to build for the individual defendants; (2) the contractor failed to pay for the work done; (3) the plaintiff filed a claim with the individual defendants, or their agent, as provided in G.S. 44-6 to G.S. 44-9, before they completed payment to the contractor; (4) they failed and refused to pay the plaintiff his pro rata share of the amount due on the contract.

• The plaintiff’s evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to him, is sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether he filed his claim in time to share in the payments made to the subcontractors, or if a proper claim was not filed, whether the defendants’ agent waived the requirement. Pumps, Inc., v. Woolworth Co., 220 N.C. 499, 17 S.E. *228 2d 639; Mfg. Co. v. Holladay, 178 N.C. 417, 100 S.E. 597; Foundry Co. v. Aluminum Co., 172 N.C. 704, 90 S.E. 923.

The defendants constituted Attorney Miller their agent to settle the claims by pro rating the payments among the subcontractors. The plaintiff had the right to show by Mr. Miller, if he could, that the claim was filed or that filing was waived. There is nothing to indicate the examination would relate to any confidential communications. When the court refused to permit the examination, the plaintiff had no opportunity to ask competent questions and to have the answers placed in the record. This was error.

As is customary in reversing a nonsuit, we refrain from discussing the evidence, except to the extent necessary to show the reason for the conclusion reached. Harrison v. Kapp, 241 N.C. 408, 85 S.E. 2d 337; Pavone v. Merion, 242 N.C. 594, 89 S.E. 2d 108. The judgment of involuntary nonsuit is

Reversed.

JohNson, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E.2d 455, 245 N.C. 226, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldston-v-randolph-machine-tool-company-nc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack