Bros v. C. W. Lane & Co. Inc
Decision Date | 18 November 1914 |
Docket Number | (No. 303.) |
Citation | 167 N.C. 267,83 S.E. 463 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | LEFLER BROS. v. C. W. LANE & CO., Inc., et al. |
A contract will be so construed as to effectuate the intention of the parties as embodied in the entire instrument, and, if reasonably possible, to give effect to every part thereof.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 730, 743; Dec. Dig. § 147.*]
Under a contract binding plaintiffs to cut and remove all timber from a hundred-foot right of way between certain stations in consideration of $30 per acre, and specifying that, in consideration of said sum, plaintiffs "further agree to clear all brush and rubbish off the right of way hereinto mentioned and cut all stumps, " they were not to be paid in any event for the entire amount covered by the boundary worked over, but were to be paid only for such portions as were cleared according to the specifications of the contract, where a further provision that the work was to be paid for "according to admeasurements made by the engineer in charge" disclosed that such was the intention of the contracting parties.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1046, 1047, 1051, 1052; Dec. Dig. 8 231.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Lane, Judge.
Action by Lefler Bros, against C. W. Lane & Co., Incorporated, and others. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. New trial ordered.
The action was to recover the price of certain work done by plaintiffs for defendant under the following written contract:
There was evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to show that, pursuant to the agreement, they had removed timber, etc., for a certain distance along right of way, and the amount cleared up was 66 acres, arrived at by estimating the entire acreage on the right of way of 100 feet for the distance they had worked over, and allowing no deduction for land in cultivation or otherwise cleared and opened; that the amount in question had been ascertained by multiplying the length by the width of right of way, etc., and the sum due on that basis of 66 acres, after crediting sums already paid, was $680.
There was evidence on part of defendant to the effect that the amount actually cleared by plaintiffs, according to specifications of the contract, was only 45.05 acres, arrived at by survey and admeasurement of H. B. Bayley, the engineer in charge. That officer testified that, if there was any clearing at all done for the distance and within the 100 feet right of way, it was allowed for in the estimate. That defendant was ready and willing to pay on this basis and had offered to do so. The court charged the jury if they believed the evidence they would render verdict for amount claimed, $680, with interest. Verdict for such amount. Judgment, and defendant excepted and appealed.
Phillips & Bower, of Lexington, for appellants.
E. E. Raper, of Lexington, for appellee.
HOKE, J. [1] In construing written contracts, it is a well-recognized rule,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Myers v. Union Elec. Light & Power Co.
...allowed for different kinds of clearing work. The same kind of a contract for similar timber clearing was construed in Lefler Bros. v. Lane & Co. (N. C.), 83 S.E. 463, to mean that "plaintiffs were not to be paid, in event, for the entire amount covered by the boundary worked over, but only......
-
Myers v. Union Electric L. & P. Co.
...Co. v. Halverson & Co., 48 Mo. App. 383; Eldridge v. Fuhr, 59 Mo. App. 44; Mackler v. Railroad Co., 62 Mo. App. 677; Leffler Bros. v. Lane & Co., 167 N.C. 267, 83 S.E. 463; 9 C.J. 826. (a) An objection to such testimony clearly made need not be repeated to subsequent similar testimony. McKe......
-
Forrest Drive Associates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...construe as meaningless any part when a meaning can be found by any reasonable construction of the contract. Lefler Bros. v. C.W. Lane & Co., Inc., 167 N.C. 267, 83 S.E. 463 (1914). Therefore, plaintiff's construction must be rejected. Its reading of the "USE OF PREMISES" clause would rende......
-
Bros v. Lane & Co
...Action by Lefler Brothers against Lane & Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. See, also, 167 N. C. 267, 83 S. E. 463. Civil action to recover an amount alleged to be due for clearing off a railroad right of way. The jury rendered the following verdict......