Case Name: HUGH PRATHER, Trading as HUGH PRATHER COMPANY v. SHAW PAINT AND WALLPAPER COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1963-10-09
Citations: 260 N.C. 313
Docket Number: 
Parties: HUGH PRATHER, Trading as HUGH PRATHER COMPANY v. SHAW PAINT AND WALLPAPER COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 260
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
HUGH PRATHER, Trading as HUGH PRATHER COMPANY v. SHAW PAINT AND WALLPAPER COMPANY.
(Filed 9 October 1963.)
Appeal by plaintiff from Froneberger, J., March 25, 1963 Regular “B” Civil Term, MecicleNbueg Superior Court.
The plaintiff instituted this civil action to recover from the defendant $8,049.90 alleged to be due for certain work done and materials furnished over and above those provided for and specified in a certain written contract dated April 14, 1958. The plaintiff alleged that additional work was dome and additional materials were furnished under a subsequent parol contract between the parties. After a lengthy hearing the jury found the parties did not enter' into a supplemental contract as .alleged by the plaintiff. From judgment that the plaintiff recover 'nothing and pay the costs, he excepted and appealed.
B.. Kermit Caldwell, for plaintiff appellant.
Helms, Mulliss, McMillan & Johnston, by James B. McMillan, for defendant appellee.

Opinion:
Per CuRIAM.
The written contract of April 14, 1958, was stipulated. The defendant paid in full the amount provided for in the written contract.
The plaintiff ¡based his claim on what he alleged to be a subsequent parol contract which the defendant denied. On the issues submitted, the jury found that the parties did not enter into any parol agreement. Error does not appear in any matter material to that issue. The jury's finding settled the dispute in .favor of the defendant.
No error.