Roberts & Johnson Lumber Co. v. Horton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Roberts & Johnson Lumber Co. v. Horton

61 S.E.2d 100, 232 N.C. 419, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 535

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 27, 1950

Docket167

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 S.E.2d 100 (Roberts & Johnson Lumber Co. v. Horton) 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

Roberts & Johnson Lumber Co. v. Horton, 61 S.E.2d 100, 232 N.C. 419, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 535 (N.C. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The question for decision is whether the evidence suffices to overcome the demurrer. The trial court thought not, and we agree.

It is clear that under tbe decisions in Rose v. Davis, 188 N.C. 355, 124 S.E. 576, and Payne v. Flack, 152 N.C. 600, 68 S.E. 16, tbe plaintiffs can enforce no lien against tbe building for materials furnished tbe contractor. Tbe owners paid in advance for more than what tbe contractor bad earned up to tbe time be quit tbe job, and at no time thereafter was be entitled to further compensation under bis agreement. This defeats tbe plaintiffs’ lien. Dixon v. Ipock, 212 N.C. 363, 193 S.E. 392; Brown v. Hotel Corp., 202 N.C. 82, 161 S.E. 735.

Additionally, however, tbe plaintiffs say tbe owners later promised to pay them for tbe materials which they bad furnished tbe contractor. This, tbe owners deny, and tbe plaintiffs’ evidence reveals no more than a mere verbal nude pact or a bare oral promise to pay. No consideration is shown for tbe promise, Stonestreet v. Southern Oil Co., 226 N.C. 261, 37 S.E. 2d 676; and tbe statute of frauds, G.S. 22-1, is also in plaintiffs’ way.

The record discloses no reversible error, hence tbe conclusion and judgment of tbe court below will be upheld.

Affirmed.

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

Stacy, C. J.

The question for decision is whether the evidence suffices to overcome the demurrer. The trial court thought not, and we agree.

It is clear that under tbe decisions in Rose v. Davis, 188 N.C. 355, 124 S.E. 576, and Payne v. Flack, 152 N.C. 600, 68 S.E. 16, tbe plaintiffs can enforce no lien against tbe building for materials furnished tbe contractor. Tbe owners paid in advance for more than what tbe contractor bad earned up to tbe time be quit tbe job, and at no time thereafter was be entitled to further compensation under bis agreement. This defeats tbe plaintiffs’ lien. Dixon v. Ipock, 212 N.C. 363, 193 S.E. 392; Brown v. Hotel Corp., 202 N.C. 82, 161 S.E. 735.

Additionally, however, tbe plaintiffs say tbe owners later promised to pay them for tbe materials which they bad furnished tbe contractor. This, tbe owners deny, and tbe plaintiffs’ evidence reveals no more than a mere verbal nude pact or a bare oral promise to pay. No consideration is shown for tbe promise, Stonestreet v. Southern Oil Co., 226 N.C. 261, 37 S.E. 2d 676; and tbe statute of frauds, G.S. 22-1, is also in plaintiffs’ way.

The record discloses no reversible error, hence tbe conclusion and judgment of tbe court below will be upheld.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 S.E.2d 100, 232 N.C. 419, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-johnson-lumber-co-v-horton-nc-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack