Morrow Bros. & Heath v. Starr

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Morrow Bros. & Heath v. Starr

86 S.E. 1037, 170 N.C. 671, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 454

DecidedNovember 24, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 86 S.E. 1037 (Morrow Bros. & Heath v. Starr) 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

Morrow Bros. & Heath v. Starr, 86 S.E. 1037, 170 N.C. 671, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 454 (N.C. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Cueiam.

This action is brought to subject the property of the defendant Patterson to a lien for material furnished. It is unnecessary to consider the various questions presented upon this phase of the case. His Honor specifically instructed the jury that if the defendant did not give his consent to have the material furnished by the plaintiff for the construction of the house charged to the defendant Patterson, to answer the first issue “No.” This eliminates all questions relating to the lien under the statute.

There is abundant evidence introduced upon the part of the plaintiff that in order to complete his house the defendant Patterson became personally responsible for the plaintiff's debt. It is true, this is denied by the defendant. The matter was submitted to the jury fairly and correctly, and we find

No error.

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

PER Cueiam.

This action is brought to subject the property of the defendant Patterson to a lien for material furnished. It is unnecessary to consider the various questions presented upon this phase of the case. His Honor specifically instructed the jury that if the defendant did not give his consent to have the material furnished by the plaintiff for the construction of the house charged to the defendant Patterson, to answer the first issue “No.” This eliminates all questions relating to the lien under the statute.

There is abundant evidence introduced upon the part of the plaintiff that in order to complete his house the defendant Patterson became personally responsible for the plaintiff's debt. It is true, this is denied by the defendant. The matter was submitted to the jury fairly and correctly, and we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.E. 1037, 170 N.C. 671, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrow-bros-heath-v-starr-nc-1915.