Wray v. Harris
| Decision Date | 30 June 1877 |
| Citation | 77 N.C. 77 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | P. J. WRAY v. JAMES H. HARRIS. |
CIVIL ACTION tried at January Special Term, 1877, of WAKE Superior Court, before Schenck, J.
The plaintiff instituted this action to recover a balance due from the defendant on a contract for building a cotton gin, &c., and claimed a lien upon the same and the land whereon it was situated by virtue of the following notice of lien:
The above named P. J. Wray files his notice and claim of lien in the office of the Superior Court Clerk for Wake County. Said claim is for work and labor done and materials furnished for the said J. H Harris upon the plantation of said Harris in Cary Township in said County, to the amount of $508 upon which amount there is a balance now unpaid of $255. Said work and labor and materials were performed and furnished in the construction of a cotton gin upon said plantation, and upon the said cotton gin and land upon which the same is situated, the said Wray claims his lien. This 17th day of December, 1875.
P. J. WRAY.
Sworn and subscribed before me this 17th day of December, 1875.
J. N. BUNTING, C. S. C.”
The defendant answered, admitting the debt, but denying that the above notice created any lien on his property as claimed by the plaintiff, by reason of its failure to comply with the requirements of the statute.
His Honor held that the notice was insufficient and the plaintiff appealed.
Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller & Ashe, for plaintiff .
Messrs. Busbee & Busbee, for defendant .
It is very clear that the claim of lien filed in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court does not come up to the requirements of the Act. Bat. Rev. ch. 65, § 4. It does not specify in detail the materials furnished or labor performed, or give the dates at which the materials were furnished or the labor was performed. The date given in the claim was evidently intended only as the date when it was put in writing for the purpose of being filed. Such liens are the creatures of the statute and its requirements must be substantially observed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Blowpipe Co. v. Spencer
...36; 37 W. Va. 641; 2 Cal. 90; 2 Greene 508; 10 Md. 257; 3 Minn. 86; 18 Miss. 627; 37 Pa. St. 125; 50 N. Y. 300; 45 Ga. 159; 46 Tex. 196; 77 N. C. 77; 33 Mo. 390; 35 Mo. 107; 45 Ind. 258; 36 N. Y. (Sup. Ct.) 337; 30 Ark. 682; 57 Ind. 262; 58 Ind. 477; 52 Tex. 621; 8 Mo. App. 566; 83 Mo. 313;......
-
Canady v. Creech
...67, 79 S.E.2d 204 (1953); Jefferson v. Bryant, 161 N.C. 404, 77 S.E. 341 (1913); Cook v. Cobb, 101 N.C. 68, 7 S.E. 700 (1888); Wray v. Harris, 77 N.C. 77 (1877). Our Court has, however, sustained the claim of lien when it was 'a reasonable and substantial compliance with the statute.' Camer......
-
Raeford Lumber Co v. Rockfish Trading Co
...of the statute it had in mind the particularity required in filing notice of lien, as illustrated in several cases in our reports (Wray v. Harris, 77 N. C. 77; Cook v. Cobb, 101 N. C. 68, 7 S. E. 700; Jefferson v. Bryant, 161 N. C. 405, 77 S. E. 341), and the principle, well established as ......
-
Raeford Lumber Co. v. Rockfish Trading Co.
... ... particularity required in filing notice of lien, as ... illustrated in several cases in our reports (Wray v ... Harris, 77 N.C. 77; Cook v. Cobb, 101 N.C. 68, ... 7 S.E. 700; Jefferson v. Bryant, 161 N.C. 405, 77 ... S.E. 341), and the principle, well ... ...