{
  "id": 11255887,
  "name": "ROBERT S. HUTCHINSON; Receiver, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF IREDELL COUNTY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hutchinson v. Board of Commissioners",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "844",
  "last_page": "845",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 N.C. 844"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 N. C., 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272355
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0680-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N. C., 341",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 4590,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1310591787938701e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5758192852170145
    },
    "sha256": "9439c521b27b1175b7a524e16de12dc4c93acf49d6e306f642847f026ea3efdb",
    "simhash": "1:bb49f3911a304290",
    "word_count": 775
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:58.562423+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT S. HUTCHINSON; Receiver, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF IREDELL COUNTY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pek Curiaai.\nThe decision in Foundry Co. v. Aluminum Co., ante, 702, is controlling- on the appeal in this action.\nIt was there held that the right of one furnishing materials to share in the fund due by the owner to the contractor is statutory and is dependent upon acquiring a lien on the property, and if no lien on the property is or can be acquired, that no duty or obligation is imposed on the owner by giving notice, and the authorities are all to the effect that no lien can be acquired against public buildings. Snow v. Comrs., 112 N. C., 341; Hardware Co. v. Schools, 150 N. C., 680.\nIt follows that as the Cruse Company acquired no lien upon the property by giving notice to the owner, it thereby imposed no obligation upon the owner with reference to the amount due the contractor, and that the defendant made payment to the Cruse Company of its own motion and when under no duty to do so, and that the amount paid cannot be allowed as a credit against the plaintiff receiver.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pek Curiaai."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. B. Justice, II. P. Grier, and U. 0. Jones for plaintiff.",
      "Caldwell & Caldiuell for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT S. HUTCHINSON; Receiver, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF IREDELL COUNTY.\n(Filed 19 December, 1916.)\nMechanics\u2019 liens \u2014 Public Buildings \u2014 liens \u2014 Trust Funds \u2014 Distribution\u2014 Statutes.\nOne furnishing material to a contractor for a public building can acquire no lien thereon under the statute, and notice given to the commissioners gives him no right of distribution in the funds in their hands due to the contractor; hence, the commissioners are without authority to deduct the amount due such material man from that due the contractor before payment, and a receiver of the contractor may recover the full amount thereof.\nAppeal from Ferguson, at Fall Term, 1916, of IRedell.\nThis is an action by the receiver of the Soloman Construction Company to-recover $1,498.86.\nOn 11 April, 1913, the Soloman Construction Company, a corporation, entered into a contract with the county of Iredell for the erection and completion of a county home at and for the price of $25,800, and thereafter did extra and additional work of the value of $68, and sold the county some lumber of the value of $10.53, making a total of $25,878.53.\nThe defendant paid the Soloman Construction Company, on its contract, including small items to complete the buildings and replace defective concrete, a total sum of $24,379.98, leaving a balance due of $1,490.86, for which the plaintiff in this action obtained judgment.\nOn 11 February, 1914, plaintiff was appointed receiver for the Soloman Construction Company. At the time of the appointment of a receiver the contract was practically completed,'but final settlement had not been made.\nThe Soloman Construction Company sublet the contract for the painting to Lon G-. Cruse Company, for $670. On 30 January, 1914, eleven days before the receivership, the Lon Gr. Cruse Company filed a notice and claim of lien with the chairman of the board of county commissioners. On 13 February, 1914, plaintiff notified the chairman of the board of county commissioners of his appointment as receiver for the Soloman Construction Company.\nOn 25 May, 1914, the chairman of the board of commissioners directed that an order issue for $664.75, to Duckworth & Smith, attorneys, in payment of the Cruse claim of $670, $5.25 having been deducted for work done by the county, and on 2 June, 1914, a voucher, authorized by the board of commissioners, was issued for $664.75 in full of the Cruse claim.\nOn 4 June, 1914, the defendant tendered plaintiff a check for $758.75, in full settlement of all amounts due the Soloman Construction Company, the sum .tendered representing the amount it admitted to be due under the contract, less tbe Cruse claim. Plaintiff declined to accept this check as tendered.\nPlaintiff brought this action in the Superior Court of Iredell County to recover the balance due under the contract, and by agreement it was referred to W. B. Gaither, Esq., of Newton, N. C., to take and state the account between the parties and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law to the court.\nThe referee finds that the item of $664.75, paid to Duckworth & Smith, attorneys for Lon G. Cruse Company, should not be deducted from the balance due plaintiff as receiver for the Soloman Construction Company under its contract with-the county.\nUpon the coming in of the referee\u2019s report, his Honor, Judge Ferguson, affirmed the referee\u2019s findings of fact and conclusions of law as to this item.\nJudgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.\nA. B. Justice, II. P. Grier, and U. 0. Jones for plaintiff.\nCaldwell & Caldiuell for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0844-01",
  "first_page_order": 910,
  "last_page_order": 911
}