Yeargin Const. Co., Inc. v. Futren Development Corp., s. 7526SC798
Decision Date | 16 June 1976 |
Docket Number | 7526SC953,Nos. 7526SC798,s. 7526SC798 |
Citation | 29 N.C.App. 731,225 S.E.2d 623 |
Parties | YEARGIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. FUTREN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Grier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage & Preston, by Gaston H. Gage and William P. Farthing, Jr., Charlotte, and Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, by Charles T. Roy, Jr., Greenville, S.C., for plaintiff appellant-appellee.
William H. Ashendorf and Perry, Patrick, Farmer & Michaux, by Roy H. Michaux, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellant-appellee.
The sole question presented by plaintiff's appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees in amount of $31,900, representing ten percent of the principal amount of the verdict. We hold that the court did not err in denying the motion.
The contract between the parties contains the following provision:
Plaintiff argues that under the common law of our State, parties may contract for the payment of attorneys' fees in the event of litigation based on the contract. We do not find this argument persuasive.
The first expression of our Supreme Court on this question was in Tinsley v. Hoskins, 111 N.C. 340, 16 S.E. 325 (1892). There the court held that a stipulation in a promissory note 'that in case this note is collected by legal process the ususal collection fee shall be due and payable' is not consistent with public policy, therefore, the same is not enforceable.
In Parker v. Realty Company, 195 N.C. 644, 646, 143 S.E. 254, 256 (1928), the court stated with approval the general rule that "(a)ttorneys' fees are not recoverable by successful litigants in this state, as such are not regarded as a part of the court costs". The court further declared that '(t)his rule has been applied to suits on promissory notes, breach of contract, personal injury and injunctions'.
It appears to be well established that ordinarily attorneys' fees are recoverable only when expressly authorized by statute. Horner v. Chamber of Commerce, 236 N.C. 96, 72 S.E.2d 21 (1952). See also Hoskins v. Hoskins, 259 N.C. 704, 131 S.E.2d 326 (1963); Wachovia Bank & Trust Company v. Schneider, 235 N.C. 446, 70 S.E.2d 578 (1952); Credit Corporation v. Wilson, 12 N.C.App. 481, 183 S.E.2d 859 (1971), Aff'd, 281 N.C. 140, 187 S.E.2d 752 (1972).
Plaintiff next argues that assuming the common law does not allow recovery of attorneys' fees in this case, their recovery is authorized by G.S. 6--21.2 (enacted in 1967) which provides in pertinent part: 'Obligations to pay attorneys' fees upon any note, conditional sale contract or Other evidence of indebtedness . . . shall be valid and enforceable . . ..' (Emphasis added.) Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. P. Browne & Associates Inc.
...Defendants rely principally upon a pre- Stillwell decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, Yeargin Construction Co. v. Futren Development Corp., 29 N.C.App. 731, 225 S.E.2d 623 (1976). In Yeargin, the court held that a written contract to construct condominiums was not “evidence of ......
-
Stillwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Interstate Equipment Co., 92
...are clearly and expressly authorized by statute." 12 N.C.App. at 482, 483, 183 S.E.2d at 859, 860. See also Construction Co. v. Development Corp., 29 N.C.App. 731, 225 S.E.2d 623, cert. denied, 290 N.C. 660, 228 S.E.2d 459 (1976), expressly rejecting the argument that the common law of this......
-
Stillwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Interstate Equipment Co.
...S.E.2d 613 (1979). This is so even though attorney's fees were expressly provided for in the contract. See Construction Co. v. Development Corp., 29 N.C.App. 731, 225 S.E.2d 623, Dis. rev. denied, 290 N.C. 660, 228 S.E.2d 459 (1976). The court's entry of summary judgment against plaintiff f......
-
Martin v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
... ... Construction Co. v. Development ... Corp., 29 N.C.App. 731, 225 S.E.2d 623, ... See Hays Livestk. Com'n. Co., Inc. v. Maly Livestk. Com'n. Co., Inc., 498 F.2d ... In Federal Surety Co. v. Basin Const. Co., 91 Mont. 114, 5 P.2d 775 (1931), where the ... ...