Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina; March 23, 1966; North Carolina; State Supreme Court
In the case of Pete Wall Plumbing Company, Inc. v. Bruce Harris, the Supreme Court of North Carolina addressed an appeal regarding a laborer's and materialman's lien. The plaintiff, Pete Wall Plumbing Company, provided a hot air heating system and plumbing for a new house owned by Robert and Catherine D. Alston. After nonpayment of $2,937.43 for labor and materials, the plaintiff filed a lien against the property and initiated a lawsuit in Alamance County Superior Court. The court found that the defendants had entered into an indivisible contract with the plaintiff for the work done, and no response was filed by the defendants.
The Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay the amount owed with interest and declaring the judgment a lien on the property, effective from the date materials were first furnished. The court noted that the plaintiff had employed a lawyer to pursue this claim and had all relevant facts regarding the contract's parties, concluding that there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation regarding whom the plaintiff had contracted with. The plaintiff maintained that its contract was solely with Robert Alston and his wife, Catherine.
Plaintiff failed to collect a judgment against the Alstons and subsequently initiated a lawsuit against defendant Harris, claiming a contract for plumbing and heating installation in a residence for Robert Alston. Pete Wall, the plaintiff's president, testified that he sued Harris and employed Mr. Rockwell for the same claim against Alston. A typographical error was noted in his testimony regarding the parties involved. The excerpt references the principle of election of remedies, citing Economy Pumps, Inc. v. F. W. Woolworth Co. and Doggett Lumber Co. v. Perry, which establish that if a claimant files a lien as a subcontractor, they cannot later claim as a direct contractor. The latter case confirmed that once the plaintiff opted to assert a lien as a subcontractor, they were barred from pursuing a contractor’s lien for the same materials. Additionally, the case of Scholl v. Baynes illustrates that a party cannot shift theories of liability after selecting a remedy, emphasizing that pursuing one remedy to judgment constitutes an election that precludes subsequent claims based on inconsistent rights, even if full satisfaction is not achieved. This principle is supported by various legal precedents.
Plaintiff initiated a civil action against Robert Alston and his wife to recover costs for labor and materials provided for a new house, asserting a laborer's and materialman's lien based on a contract with the Alstons. Having achieved a favorable judgment against them, the plaintiff is barred from pursuing a separate claim against Bruce Harris, alleging that the labor and materials were instead provided under a contract with him. The plaintiff claims that Harris's actions—taking a deed of trust from the Alstons, foreclosing, and representing that he was not securing himself—constitute inequitable conduct that should prevent him from denying the plaintiff's rights. However, the court found no evidence of Harris's wrongdoing regarding the identity of the contracting parties and deemed the plaintiff's arguments untenable. Additionally, the plaintiff's claims of error regarding the admission and exclusion of evidence were found to be noncompliant with procedural rules, lacking clarity without further reference to the record. The court affirmed the judgment of compulsory nonsuit, with two justices not participating in the decision.
