{
  "id": 8552734,
  "name": "C. C. WOODS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff v. BUDD-PIPER ROOFING COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. W. EDWARD JENKINS, ARCHITECT, Third-Party Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "C. C. Woods Construction Co. v. Budd-Piper Roofing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1980-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7914SC963",
  "first_page": "634",
  "last_page": "636",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 634"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 4891,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.827,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8258001464992802e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7199423595738593
    },
    "sha256": "8c2809131cbb45922d04a97229d48144da4f65e42cbcd617cd838bdea14cda3b",
    "simhash": "1:9e7b25bf7e80bb78",
    "word_count": 813
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:37.131990+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Erwin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "C. C. WOODS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff v. BUDD-PIPER ROOFING COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. W. EDWARD JENKINS, ARCHITECT, Third-Party Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe judgment from which the third-party plaintiff appealed was entered on 23 April 1979. On 1 May 1979 the third-party plaintiff filed notice of appeal from the 23 April judgment. On 2 May the third-party plaintiff filed a \u201cmotion for new trial\u201d or, \u201cin the alternative, modification of judgment\u201d pursuant to Rule 59, G.S. \u00a7 1A-1. Likewise, on 2 May, the third-party plaintiff again gave notice of appeal from the 23 April judgment, and the court entered an order fixing the time for the service of the proposed record on appeal, and for the third-party defendant to serve objections or proposed alternative record. On 15 May the trial judge entered an Order denying the \u201cmotion for a new trial\u201d or, \u201cin the alternative, modification of judgment,\u201d and stated that the appeal entries previously filed \u201care to remain in full force and effect and said Order denying [the] motion for a new trial (or, in the alternative, modification of judgment) is hereby appealed from as if said Appeal Entries had been filed subsequent to said Order. . . .\u201d Thereafter, and inexplicably, the trial judge on 30 May filed a second Order wherein he again denied the third-party plaintiff\u2019s motion for a new trial or modification of judgment, and on 6 June filed another Order stating that the appeal entries \u201chereinbefore filed are to remain in full force and effect\u201d, and again fixing the time periods for service of the proposed record on appeal.\nWhether the notice of appeal from the judgment entered 23 April was given on 1 May or 2 May, as the record plainly demonstrates, or on 15 May, as the appellant contended at oral argument, the record on appeal was not filed in this Court within 150 days from the date of the giving of notice of appeal, as required by Rule 12(a), N. C. Rules App. Proc. Since no extension of time within which to file the record on appeal was sought or granted by this Court, the appeal will be dismissed. Rule 27(c), N. C. Rules of App. Proc. The chronology of events set out above with respect to the giving of the notice of appeal, the making of the motion for a new trial or a modification of judgment pursuant to Rule 59, the orders fixing the time for the service of the record on appeal, and the orders denying the third-party plaintiff\u2019s Rule 59 motion, did not and could not extend the time within which the appellant is required to file the record on appeal in this Court after giving notice of appeal from the judgment. See the Drafting Committee Note to App. Rule 27(c).\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Arnold and Erwin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Eugene C. Brooks III, and Lipton & Mills, by Stuart S. Lipton, for the third-party plaintiff appellant.",
      "Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by Charles H. Young, Jr., for the third-party defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. C. WOODS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff v. BUDD-PIPER ROOFING COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. W. EDWARD JENKINS, ARCHITECT, Third-Party Defendant\nNo. 7914SC963\n(Filed 6 May 1980)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 39.1\u2014 record on appeal not filed in apt time \u2014 dismissal of appeal\nAppeal is dismissed where the record on appeal was not filed in the appellate court within 150 days from the giving of notice of appeal. Appellant\u2019s motion for a new trial or a modification of the judgment pursuant to Rule 59, the court\u2019s order fixing the time for service of the record on appeal, and the court\u2019s orders denying appellant\u2019s Rule 59 motion did not extend the time within which the appellant was required to file the record on appeal after giving notice of appeal from the judgment.\nAPPEAL by third-party plaintiff from Farmer, Judge. Judgment entered 23 April 1979 in Superior Court, DURHAM County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 15 April 1980.\nThis is a civil proceeding wherein C. C. Woods Construction Company, Inc., plaintiff, seeks to recover $11,345.40 from Budd-Piper Roofing Company on a contract under which Budd-Piper was to perform roofing work on a building to be constructed by plaintiff. Defendant Budd-Piper filed a third-party complaint against W. Edward Jenkins, the registered architect for the building, and alleged that it had been damaged by Jenkins\u2019 negligence in approving a building materials list which inaccurately specified the roofing bonding material to be used. The third-party defendant filed an Answer denying negligence on his part and alleging that Budd-Piper had substituted unacceptable roofing bonding materials without requesting permission from anyone in violation of its contract with plaintiff.\nThereafter, the trial judge, after hearing all the evidence, allowed Jenkins\u2019 motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b), G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, and on 23 April 1979 entered a judgment wherein he made findings and conclusions, and ordered that Budd-Piper\u2019s third-party action against Jenkins be dismissed. Budd-Piper appealed from the judgment of involuntary dismissal of its third-party claim.\nEugene C. Brooks III, and Lipton & Mills, by Stuart S. Lipton, for the third-party plaintiff appellant.\nYoung, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by Charles H. Young, Jr., for the third-party defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0634-01",
  "first_page_order": 662,
  "last_page_order": 664
}
