{
  "id": 8554364,
  "name": "LAMAR GUDGER, Individually, and LAMAR GUDGER, as the Sole Surviving Partner of Gudger & Sawyer, a Partnership v. TRANSITIONAL FURNITURE, INC., and HENRY JAMES, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gudger v. Transitional Furniture, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1976-08-04",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 7628SC49 and 7628SC504",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "390",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 387"
    }
  ],
  "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": "180 S.E. 2d 396",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553197
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 S E. 2d 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550390
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/26/0175-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 304,
    "char_count": 5067,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.662,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1367013473998762e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5774819304137037
    },
    "sha256": "5f5efd511da7bb4149c2ca2d2d96501c84b9e713877a389be69d92bf3d6ace84",
    "simhash": "1:13f7424c48bd7613",
    "word_count": 785
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:34.327987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LAMAR GUDGER, Individually, and LAMAR GUDGER, as the Sole Surviving Partner of Gudger & Sawyer, a Partnership v. TRANSITIONAL FURNITURE, INC., and HENRY JAMES, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nUntil January 1975 plaintiff\u2019s law firm represented Transitional Furniture, Inc. and its president, Murl Whitener, in several matters involving litigation. In January 1975, at plaintiff\u2019s suggestion, Transitional discharged plaintiff and employed defendant James to handle its legal affairs. Defendant James effected a settlement of a fire insurance claim by Transitional. Transitional is alleged to be insolvent.\nDefendant offered affidavits in support of his motion for summary judgment. The affidavit of Murl E. Whitener, chief executive officer of Transitional, states: that defendant James effected a settlement of Transitional\u2019s fire insurance claim for $100,000.00; that \u201cI instructed Mr. James to effect a proportionate settlement with the creditors of Transitional, but instructed him not to pay Mr. Gudger any amount, as that is what his firm\u2019s services were reasonably worth\u201d; that \u201cI did authorize Mr. James to make some provision for paying Mr. Gudger\u2019s expense statement of $1,112.88, but only after some persuasion from Mr. James.\u201d The affidavit of defendant James states: \u201cAt all times since January of 1975 I have been an attorney in an attorney-client relationship with Transitional; at no time have I nor any attorney employed by James, Williams, McElroy & Diehl, P.A. promised to pay or see to payment of plaintiffs\u2019 alleged fee; at no time have I been authorized by Transitional to pay plaintiffs\u2019 alleged fee; I was specifically instructed by Transitional not to pay plaintiffs\u2019 alleged fee, as Transitional considers it not due and owing; I have no assets of Transitional under my control.\u201d\nIn opposition to defendant James\u2019 motion for summary judgment, plaintiff offered his own affidavit. Plaintiff\u2019s affidavit purports to support his claim against Transitional, but in no way does it purport to support his claim against defendant James. Plaintiff offered no evidence to support his claim against defendant James.\nThe purpose of the summary judgment rule is to provide an expeditious method of determining whether a genuine issue as to any material fact actually exists and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rentals, Inc. v. Rentals, Inc., 26 N.C. App. 175, 215 S E. 2d 398 (1975). Unsupported allegations in the pleadings are insufficient to create a genuine issue as to a material fact where the moving adverse party supports his motion by competent evidentiary matter showing the facts to be contrary to that alleged in the pleadings. Blackmon v. Decorating Co., 11 N.C. App. 137, 180 S.E. 2d 396 (1971). \u201cWhen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.\u201d G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(e).\nThe only claim asserted by plaintiff against defendant James is by way of allegations on information and belief contained in the complaint. These allegations were not supported in any way at the summary judgment hearing. Standing alone, they are insufficient to overcome the competent evidence offered by the movant showing the facts to be contrary to those alleged. Summary judgment was properly entered for the defendant James.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Hedrick and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adams, Hendon & Carson, by George Ward Hendon, for the 'plaintiff.",
      "James, Williams, McElroy & Diehl, by James H. Abrams, Jr., for defendant James."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LAMAR GUDGER, Individually, and LAMAR GUDGER, as the Sole Surviving Partner of Gudger & Sawyer, a Partnership v. TRANSITIONAL FURNITURE, INC., and HENRY JAMES, JR.\nNos. 7628SC49 and 7628SC504\n(Filed 4 August 1976)\nContracts \u00a7 32\u2014 contract for legal fees \u2014 wrongful interference with performance \u2014 summary judgment proper\nIn an action against individual defendant for his allegedly wrongful interference with the corporate defendant\u2019s performance of its contract to pay plaintiff for legal services, allegations made upon information and belief contained in plaintiff\u2019s complaint which were not supported in any way at a hearing on individual defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment were insufficient to overcome the competent evidence offered by defendant showing that he did not interfere with the contract between plaintiff and the corporate defendant.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Martin (Harry C.), Judge. Judgment entered 24 May 1976 in Superior Court, Buncombe County.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover legal fees allegedly owed plaintiff by Transitional Furniture, Inc. Recovery was sought against defendant James on the theory that James wrongfully interfered with Transitional\u2019s performance of its contract to pay plaintiff.\nThe trial judge granted defendant James\u2019 motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action as to James, finding that there was no just reason for delay. Plaintiff appealed.\nAdams, Hendon & Carson, by George Ward Hendon, for the 'plaintiff.\nJames, Williams, McElroy & Diehl, by James H. Abrams, Jr., for defendant James."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 415,
  "last_page_order": 418
}