{
  "id": 8652532,
  "name": "ISLER v. DIXON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Isler v. Dixon",
  "decision_date": "1906-03-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "529",
  "last_page": "530",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "140 N.C. 529"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "119 N. C., 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655276
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0443-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 139,
    "char_count": 1801,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3086728222378988
    },
    "sha256": "361db7659d7819c46f70a669d7a2e63628733a3f94f3b276d4c5f3282e85f8bb",
    "simhash": "1:e16f461fd7fecace",
    "word_count": 302
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:16:12.663031+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ISLER v. DIXON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThere is only one exception that requires consideration. The plaintiff erected gutters, down spouts, outlets, etc., for the appellant\u2019s house and duly filed his lien. The building of the gutters, down spouts, outlets, etc., and furnishing the material were all in the same contract, which was entire and indivisible. The contractor is entitled to a lien for the whole amount under the \u201cmechanic\u2019s and laborer\u2019s lien law.\u201d Revisal, section 2016. Broyhill v. Gaither, 119 N. C., 443, is exactly \u201con all fours.\u201d\nThe appellant contended that the words in the \u201cbill of particulars\u201d in filing the lien \u201c158 feet gutter at 38c,\u201d \u201c283 feet gutter at 20c,\u201d etc., showed that the lien was only for material furnished, and hence that the defendant could claim his exemptions. But the \u201cfacts found\u201d by the referee and approved by the judge show that the contract and lien were for the gutters, down spouts, outlets, etc., including both work and material. The judgment is therefore superior to the homestead and personal property exemption. Const., Art. X, sec. 4.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. W. Isler for the plaintiff.",
      "T. C. Wooten and Shepherd & Shepherd for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ISLER v. DIXON.\n(Filed March 13, 1906).\nLien for Labor and Material \u2014 Judgment\u2014Exemptions.\nWhere the work done on a house and furnishing the material were all in the same contract, which was entire and indivisible, the contractor is entitled to a lien for the whole amount under the \u201cmechanic\u2019s and laborer\u2019s lien law,\u201d and the judgment is superior to the homestead and personal property exemption.\nActioN by S. H. Isler, Jr., against J. W. Dixon, Heard by Judge W. B. Oouncill, npon exceptions to the referee's report, at the August Term, 1905, of the Superior Court of Lenoie. Erom a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nS. W. Isler for the plaintiff.\nT. C. Wooten and Shepherd & Shepherd for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0529-01",
  "first_page_order": 565,
  "last_page_order": 566
}