{
  "id": 8603011,
  "name": "BROADFOOT IRON WORKS, INC., v. EUGENE B. BUGG and E. I. BUGG, Trading as WILMINGTON HOTEL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Broadfoot Iron Works, Inc. v. Bugg",
  "decision_date": "1935-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "284",
  "last_page": "285",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 284"
    }
  ],
  "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": "110 S. E., 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 24",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655152
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0024-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 3144,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20713601449350907
    },
    "sha256": "97d81b73a6c215104dfe61b497fe66140de09bd0697426c10056d439ceaa6e84",
    "simhash": "1:0200801bf228a819",
    "word_count": 545
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BROADFOOT IRON WORKS, INC., v. EUGENE B. BUGG and E. I. BUGG, Trading as WILMINGTON HOTEL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oueiam.\nThere was error in the refusal of defendants\u2019 motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence. There was no evidence tending to show that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the repairs made on their property by the plaintiff, at the request of their lessee, and while the property was in his possession.\nThis is not an action to recover on a lien on personal property under the provisions of 0. S., 2435. The statute is applicable only when the property repaired by an artisan or mechanic is in his possession. In such case, the artisan or mechanic may retain possession of the property which he has repaired, at the request of \u201cthe owner or legal possessor,\u201d until his just and reasonable charges for his work and materials have been paid. Johnson v. Yates, 183 N. C., 24, 110 S. E., 630, is readily distinguished from the instant case. In that case it was held that the mechanic who had repaired an automobile at the request of a mortgagor had the right to retain possession of the automobile as against the mortgagee until his reasonable charges had been paid.\nThe judgment is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stevens & Burgwin for plaintiff.",
      "M\u00bfNorton & Mclntire for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BROADFOOT IRON WORKS, INC., v. EUGENE B. BUGG and E. I. BUGG, Trading as WILMINGTON HOTEL.\n(Filed 22 May, 1935.)\nMechanics\u2019 Liens A b \u2014 Mechanic\u2019s lien under O. S., 2435, is based upon retention of possession of property by mechanic.\nWhere a mechanic repairs certain personal property at the request of the lessee, and without request or knowledge on the part of the owner, and the mechanic never has possession of the property, but possession is returned to the owner by the lessee upon the termination of the lease, the mechanic may not hold the owner liable for the reasonable value of the repairs, the statute relating to mechanics\u2019 liens, O. S., 2435, being applicable only where the mechanic retains possession of the property.\nAppeal by defendants from Grady, J., at October Term, 1934, of New Hanover.\nReversed.\nTbis is an action to recover of tbe defendants for certain repairs made by tbe plaintiff on articles of personal property owned by tbe defendants.\nAt tbe time tbe repairs were made tbe property was in tbe possession of a lessee of tbe defendants. Tbe repairs were made at tbe request of tbe lessee, and not at tbe request or with tbe knowledge of tbe defendants. Tbe reasonable value of tbe repairs was $55.50. Tbe lessee admitted bis liability to tbe plaintiff for tbis amount.\nAt tbe date of tbe commencement of tbe action tbe property wbicb bad been repaired by tbe plaintiff was in the possession of tbe defendants, to whom it bad been delivered by tbe lessee after tbe repairs were made, upon tbe expiration of tbe lease. Tbe property bad at no time been in tbe possession of tbe plaintiff.\nAt tbe close of all the evidence tbe defendants moved for judgment as of nonsuit. Tbe motion was denied, and tbe defendants excepted.\nIssues were submitted to tbe jury, and judgment was rendered tbat plaintiff recover of tbe defendants tbe sum of $55.50, with interest and costs. Tbe defendants appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nStevens & Burgwin for plaintiff.\nM\u00bfNorton & Mclntire for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0284-01",
  "first_page_order": 350,
  "last_page_order": 351
}