{
  "id": 8594834,
  "name": "PEARCE-YOUNG-ANGEL COMPANY v. S. STERNBERG et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pearce-Young-Angel Co. v. Sternberg",
  "decision_date": "1930-06-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "21",
  "last_page": "22",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 21"
    }
  ],
  "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": "124 S. E., 576",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653808
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0355-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 3822,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20705917603690407
    },
    "sha256": "db79bafae0a13fb7dcdd68b05578ee7f3b9bc139f2501cdf234a306136d60a39",
    "simhash": "1:34daa361752339f8",
    "word_count": 655
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "PEARCE-YOUNG-ANGEL COMPANY v. S. STERNBERG et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIn the face of the finding that appellant\u2019s claim was not filed with the owner until after the last payment had been made to the contractor, which is not challenged by any exception (and which means in the light of the record that the surety or indemnitor completed the building at the instance of the owner and not for and on behalf of the contractor), we fail to see any error in the judgment, as it affects the rights of the owner and said claimant, of which the latter can complain. The liability of the owner for appellant\u2019s claim is the only question presented by the appeal.\nWhen the owner has paid the contractor in full, prior to receipt of notice of claim from a laborer or materialman for work done on or material furnished and used in the construction of a building, there is no provision in the statute whereby such laborer or materialman may acquire a lien against the property, or hold the owner liable for the value of such claim. Rose v. Davis, 188 N. C., 355, 124 S. E., 576.\nAppellant is not demanding judgment against the contractor, and the surety or indemnitor, while apparently participating in the trial, and has filed a brief in this Court, seems not to have been named in the summons, nor did it file any pleading in the cause.\nAppellant makes no point of the fact that the small amount paid into court by the plaintiff will be consumed in costs and other claims.\nIn this view of the record, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the liability of the surety or indemnitor, debated on oral argument and in briefs.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Garter & Garter for plaintiff.",
      "Clinton K. Hughes and Vonno L. Gudger for Carolina Bonding and Insurance Company.",
      "Bernard, Williams & Wright for S. Sternberg & Co."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PEARCE-YOUNG-ANGEL COMPANY v. S. STERNBERG et al.\n(Filed 16 June, 1930.)\n1. Laborers\u2019 and Materialmen\u2019s Liens O b \u2014 Where owner has paid\u2019 contractor in full before notice of materialman\u2019s claim the owner is not liabl\u00e9.\nA material furnisher for a building may not acquire a lien against the property or hold the owner liable when the owner has paid the contractor in full before receiving notice of the claim from the materialman.\n2. Appeal and Error E h \u2014 Surety\u2019s liability on bond of contractor not presented in this case.\nThe liability of a surety or indemnitor is not presented on appeal when judgment in the lower court is not sought against him, and the question is not there presented by the pleadings or evidence.\nAppeal by defendant, S. Sternberg & Co., from Johnson, Special Judge, at November Special Term, 1929, of BuitcoMbe.\nCivil action instituted by plaintiff, owner, against J. H. Fisher, contractor, and certain materialmen, to have the balance of the contract price, $433.09, which plaintiff has paid into court, distributed among the rightful claimants, to remove the liens filed against plaintiff\u2019s property as clouds upon its title, and to have the plaintiff discharged from all liability, personal or other, to the defendants, or any of them, on account of the erection and materials furnished and used in the construction of a warehouse in the city of Asheville.\nA reference was ordered (presumably by consent) and the matter heard by F. ~W. Thomas, Esq., who found the facts and reported the same, together with his conclusions of law, to the court. On exceptions duly filed to the report of the referee, the same was modified and affirmed, the court finding \u201cthat the last payment made by owner, Pearce-Young-Angel Co., to J. H. Fisher, contractor, was made 4 December, 1926, and before the said claim of S. Sternberg & Co. was filed with said owner,\u201d and adjudged that said claimant was neither entitled to a lien against plaintiff\u2019s property, nor \u201centitled to recover of any of the parties hereto,\u201d from which judgment the said S. Sternberg & Co. appeals, assigning errors.\nGarter & Garter for plaintiff.\nClinton K. Hughes and Vonno L. Gudger for Carolina Bonding and Insurance Company.\nBernard, Williams & Wright for S. Sternberg & Co."
  },
  "file_name": "0021-01",
  "first_page_order": 89,
  "last_page_order": 90
}