Fore v. Feimster
| Decision Date | 17 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 443. |
| Citation | 88 S.E. 977,171 N.C. 551 |
| Parties | FORE v. FEIMSTER ET AL., BOARD OF COM'RS, IREDELL COUNTY. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Webb, Judge.
Action by J. A. Fore, Receiver of the Piedmont Lumber Company against M. A. Feimster and others, Members of the Board of Commissioners of Iredell County. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
There were facts in evidence tending to show that, in 1913 defendants, as the board of commissioners of Iredell county entered into a contract with the Solomon Construction Company that the latter would supply all material, etc., and construct for the county a county home, at the contract price of $23,000, the construction company giving bond in the sum of $8,000 to save county harmless by reason of nonperformance of the stipulations of the contract; that the home has been built and paid for except a small amount, which has been tendered to plaintiff and refused; that, during performance of the work, Piedmont Lumber Company furnished to Solomon Construction Company certain material and supplies to be used, and which were used, in said building, and there is a balance due for same of $622.65; that the construction company is insolvent, and, the Piedmont Lumber Company being also insolvent, plaintiff, as receiver of said company brings the present suit to hold the members of the board of commissioners personally liable for the debt on the ground that they failed to take a bond to protect materialmen and laborers, as required by Acts 1913, c. 150. At the close of the testimony, pursuant to motions made in apt time, judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff, having duly excepted, appealed.
Stewart & McRae and McNinch & Justice, all of Charlotte, for appellant.
L. C Caldwell and H. P. Grier, both of Statesville, for appellees.
HOKE J. (after stating the facts as above).
In direct reference to the question presented, the statute makes provision as follows:
Pub. Acts 1913, c. 150.
The conditions of the bond taken being only to save the obligee, that is, the county of Iredell, harmless by reason of default in complying with the stipulations of the contract, as now advised the bond does not seem to extend or apply to the claims of materialmen and laborers for sums due them from the contractor. Manufacturing Co. v. Andrews, 165 N.C. 285, 81 S.E. 418, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 763, and the question presented is whether the members of the board of commissioners, as individuals, should be held liable to plaintiff, a materialman, for failure to take the bond in terms as required by the law. While it is the recognized position here and elsewhere that:
"One who holds a public office, administrative in character, and in reference to an act clearly ministerial, may be held individually liable, in a civil action, to one who has received special injuries in consequence of his failure to perform or negligence in performance of his official duty" (Hipp v. Farrell, 169 N.C. 551-555, 86 S.E. 570)
--in several authoritative decisions on the subject in other states, it has been held that where an act of the Legislature in reference to a corporate body in its terms imposes a corporate duty, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Noland Co., Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Southern Pines School
...decisions on the subject, we think this question must be answered in the negative. Such was the direct holding in Fore v. Feimster, 171 N.C. 551, 88 S.E. 977, L. A. 1916F, 481. For the sake of clearness, it may be well to observe that the law in regard to liens, in so far as it relates to m......
-
Moffitt v. Davis
... ... 445, 67 S.E. 995, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 115, ... and dissenting opinion by Brown, J., concurred in by Walker, ... In ... Fore v. Feimster, 171 N.C. 551, 554, 88 S.E. 977, ... 978, L. R. A. 1916F, 481, we find: "In some cases the ... members of the board are made ... ...
-
London v. Board of Com'rs for Yancey County
... ... meeting duly held as prescribed by law. Hearne v ... Commissioners, 188 N.C. 45, 123 S.E. 641; Fore v ... Feimster, 171 N.C. 551, 88 S.E. 977, L. R. A. 1916F, ... 481; Wright v. Kinney, 123 N.C. 618, 31 S.E. 874 ... Did the ... ...
-
Hipp v. Farrell (State Report Title: Hipp v. Ferrall)
...does not attach, where the legislation applicable otherwise provides, an instance appears in our recent decision of Fore v. Feimster et al., 171 N.C. 551, 88 S.E. 977. In that case it was held that, although the duty imposed a ministerial one, and primarily for the benefit of individuals, p......