Fulton v. Rice
| Decision Date | 17 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 7130DC692,7130DC692 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Hugh B. FULTON v. Robert W. RICE. |
Millar, Alley & Killian by Leon M. Killian, III, Waynesville, for plaintiff appellee.
Morgan, Ward & Brown by H. S. Ward, Jr., Waynesville, for defendant appellant.
The sole question raised on appeal is whether the defendant by entering into the instant contract became a general contractor within the meaning of G.S. § 87--1 and was thus barred from recovery on his counterclaim because of his failure to have the license required by Chapter 87 of the General Statutes.
The statute in effect at the time of the institution of this suit defined a 'general contractor' as
'* * * one who for a fixed price, commission, fee or wage, undertakes to bid upon or to construct any building, highway, sewer main, grading or any improvement or structure where the cost of the undertaking is twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) or more and anyone who shall bid upon or engage in constructing any undertaking or improvements above mentioned in the State of North Carolina costing twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) or more shall be deemed and held to have engaged in the business of general contracting in the State of North Carolina.
'This section shall not apply to persons or firms or corporations furnishing or erecting industrial equipment, power plant equipment, radial brick chimneys, and monuments.'
The plaintiff contends that in determining whether a contractor is a general contractor within the meaning of G.S. § 87--1, the court must look to the owner's total cost of the structure. If it exceeds the statutory amount, the contractor is a general contractor.
The defendant contends that the cost of the contractor's undertaking is determinative. This would, in most cases, be the contract price or the amount paid the contractor.
Certain principles of construction must be applied in arriving at a decision in this case. The statute before us imposes criminal penalties for its violation. G.S. § 87--13. It must be strictly construed and its scope may not be extended by implication beyond the meaning of its language so as to include offenses not clearly described. Vogel v. Reed Supply Co. and Supply Co. v. Da Pow Developers, Inc., 277 N.C. 119, 177 S.E.2d 273 (1970) (citing cases). It is also a statute restricting the practice of an otherwise lawful occupation to a special class of persons and as such it must be construed so as not to extend it to activities and transactions not intended by the legislature to be included. McArver v. Gerukos, 265 N.C. 413, 144 S.E.2d 277 (1965).
The statute defines a general contractor as 'one who * * * undertakes to bid upon or to construct any building * * * or structure where the Cost of the undertaking is twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) or more * * *.' (emphasis added). These words must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Learning Center, Inc. v. McGuirk
...to the general-contractor licensing requirements. See, e.g., Spears v. Walker, 75 N.C.App. 169, 330 S.E.2d 38 (1985); Fulton v. Rice, 12 N.C.App. 669, 184 S.E.2d 421 (1971). In Spears, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, construing a statute virtually identical5 to § 34-8-1, "In interpreti......
-
Hodgson Const., Inc. v. Howard
...which is again generally the same as the stated contract price for the building or other construction. Fulton v. Rice, 12 N.C.App. 669, 672, 184 S.E.2d 421, 423 (1971). However, the value of the completed construction or the stated contract price are not necessarily determinative as to the ......
-
Dabbs v. Four Tees, Inc., No. 2070630 (Ala. Civ. App. 11/7/2008)
...the general-contractor licensing requirements. See, e.g., Spears v. Walker, 75 N.C. App. 169, 330 S.E.2d 38 (1985); Fulton v. Rice, 12 N.C. App. 669, 184 S.E.2d 421 (1971). "In Spears, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, construing a statute virtually identical to § 34-8-1, "`In interpreti......
-
C.C. Walker Grading & Hauling, Inc. v. S.R.F. Management Corp., 77A84
...Inc., 277 N.C. 119, 177 S.E.2d 273 (1970); Sand and Stone, Inc. v. King, 49 N.C.App. 168, 270 S.E.2d 580 (1980); Fulton v. Rice, 12 N.C.App. 669, 184 S.E.2d 421 (1971). Construing a statute requiring the licensing of real estate brokers and salesmen, the Court has taken care to Any violatio......