Maxwell v. Perry

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Maxwell v. Perry

205 S.E.2d 350, 22 N.C. App. 58, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2237

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1974

Docket7422DC455

StatusPublished

This text of 205 S.E.2d 350 (Maxwell v. Perry) 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

Maxwell v. Perry, 205 S.E.2d 350, 22 N.C. App. 58, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2237 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Plaintiff assigns as error the dismissal of his claim against the owner. Plaintiff asserts that the owner admitted that Perry was the contractor to build the house in question and that, by virtue of such a contract, the owner was obligated for any labor and material used in the house and procured by the contractor. *60 This is an incorrect assumption. A contractor as such is not a general agent for the owner. The relationship between the owner and the contractor would depend upon what type of contract had been entered into. In the absence of any showing as to the type of contract between the owner and the contractor, the contractor would have no authority to bind the owner in any way. See Oldham & Worth, Inc. v. Bratton, 263 N.C. 307, 139 S.E. 2d 653 (1965).

In the instant case the plaintiff has failed to show any authority from the owner to the contractor to bind the owner for any purchases made by the contractor. The burden was upon the plaintiff to show that the owner was obligated to pay for the material and labor furnished by the plaintiff at the request of the contractor. The plaintiff has not carried this burden in the instant case; and, therefore, the trial court was correct in dismissing the action.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Brock and judge Britt concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Plaintiff assigns as error the dismissal of his claim against the owner. Plaintiff asserts that the owner admitted that Perry was the contractor to build the house in question and that, by virtue of such a contract, the owner was obligated for any labor and material used in the house and procured by the contractor. *60 This is an incorrect assumption. A contractor as such is not a general agent for the owner. The relationship between the owner and the contractor would depend upon what type of contract had been entered into. In the absence of any showing as to the type of contract between the owner and the contractor, the contractor would have no authority to bind the owner in any way. See Oldham & Worth, Inc. v. Bratton, 263 N.C. 307, 139 S.E. 2d 653 (1965).

In the instant case the plaintiff has failed to show any authority from the owner to the contractor to bind the owner for any purchases made by the contractor. The burden was upon the plaintiff to show that the owner was obligated to pay for the material and labor furnished by the plaintiff at the request of the contractor. The plaintiff has not carried this burden in the instant case; and, therefore, the trial court was correct in dismissing the action.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Brock and judge Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 S.E.2d 350, 22 N.C. App. 58, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-perry-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack