{
  "id": 8548773,
  "name": "WILSON ELECTRIC CO., INC. v. DR. JAMES E. ROBINSON and his wife, VERA S. ROBINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilson Electric Co. v. Robinson",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7221SC249",
  "first_page": "201",
  "last_page": "203",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 201"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "142 S.E. 2d 361",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574136
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0500-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 810",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551074
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0552-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 738",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562255
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 687",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575842
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0609-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 4562,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3999157839452508e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6445012817349582
    },
    "sha256": "2029459ff9867c14f24c2613fba6828ee18c3abeb13dea28a368158432c80919",
    "simhash": "1:17ee5d0834d7d1f8",
    "word_count": 754
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILSON ELECTRIC CO., INC. v. DR. JAMES E. ROBINSON and his wife, VERA S. ROBINSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nThrough its first seven assignments of error, plaintiff contends that the court erred-in (1) denying plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment on defendants\u2019 claim for slander of title, (2) refusing to direct a verdict for plaintiff on the issues relating to that claim, and (3) erroneously charging the jury in several respects as to these issues. These assignments of error are overruled.\nAll issues having to do with defendants\u2019 counterclaim for slander of title were answered in plaintiff\u2019s favor. Error, if any, in portions of a jury charge relating to issues answered in favor of the party asserting the error is harmless. Key v. Welding Supplies, 273 N.C. 609, 160 S.E. 2d 687; Wooten v. Cagle, 268 N.C. 366, 150 S.E. 2d 738; Prevette v. Bullis, 12 N.C. App. 552, 183 S.E. 2d 810. Moreover, the judgment, based upon the jury\u2019s verdict, dismisses defendants\u2019 counterclaim. Where a claim has been dismissed, based upon a jury verdict, the party against whom the claim was asserted is not aggrieved and may not contend upon appeal that the court committed error in permitting the jury to consider the issues relating to the claim. Hughes v. Vestal, 264 N.C. 500, 142 S.E. 2d 361.\nPlaintiff next contends that the court abused its discretion in refusing to order a new trial and in entering judgment on the verdict.\nPlaintiff had the burden of showing, not only that it performed labor or furnished materials for the making of an improvement on defendants\u2019 property, but also that the labor was performed or the materials were furnished \u201cpursuant to a contract, either express or implied,\u201d with defendants. G.S. 44A-8. Much of the evidence offered by plaintiff and all of the evidence offered by defendants tended to show that plaintiff\u2019s contract was with the general contractor employed to build the house, and not with defendants. Under these circumstances the trial court acted properly in accepting the verdict of the jury and entering judgment thereon.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GRAHAM, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph E. Goodale by Gregory W. Schiro for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hudson, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson by Norwood Robinson and George L. Little, Jr., for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILSON ELECTRIC CO., INC. v. DR. JAMES E. ROBINSON and his wife, VERA S. ROBINSON\nNo. 7221SC249\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 50 \u2014 instructions \u2014 harmless error\nError, if any, in portions of a jury charge relating to issues answered in favor of the party asserting the error is harmless.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 7 \u2014 dismissal of claim \u2014 party against whom asserted\u2014 aggrieved party\nWhere a claim has been dismissed, based upon a jury verdict, the party against whom the claim was asserted is not aggrieved and may not contend on appeal that the court erred in permitting the jury to consider issues relating to the claim.\n3. Laborers\u2019 and Materialmen\u2019s Liens \u00a7 8 \u2014 enforcement against owner \u2014 absence of contract\nIn an action to enforce a lien for electrical material and services furnished in the construction of a house on a lot owned by defendants, the trial court did not err in refusing to order a new trial and in entering judgment on the verdict in favor of defendants, where much of the evidence offered by plaintiffs and all the evidence offered by defendants tended to show that plaintiff\u2019s contract was with the general contractor employed to build the house, and not with defendants. G.S. 44A-8.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Kivett, Judge, 4 October 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Forsyth County.\nCivil action instituted 21 May 1970 to perfect a lien in the sum of $2,959.48 for electrical material furnished and labor performed in the construction of a house on a lot owned by defendants. Notice of claim of lien was filed 6 April 1970.\nPlaintiff alleged that material was furnished and labor performed pursuant to a specific contract with defendants. Defendants answered, denied that they had entered a contract with plaintiff, and counterclaimed for actual and punitive damages on the theory plaintiff slandered the title to their property by unlawfully filing the notice of lien.\nThe jury found, upon appropriate issues, that the materials were not furnished and the labor was not performed pursuant to a contract with defendants. The jury further found that plaintiff did not slander \u201cthe title of the Robinsons in filing its Notice and Claim of Lien as alleged in the Answer and Counterclaim.\u201d Judgment was entered upon the verdict dismissing the claims of both parties and cancelling the notice of lien. Only-plaintiff appealed.\nRalph E. Goodale by Gregory W. Schiro for plaintiff appellant.\nHudson, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson by Norwood Robinson and George L. Little, Jr., for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0201-01",
  "first_page_order": 225,
  "last_page_order": 227
}