Case Name: MORROW BROTHERS & HEATH COMPANY v. H. F. STARR and H. C. PATTERSON
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1915-11-24
Citations: 170 N.C. 671
Docket Number: 
Parties: MORROW BROTHERS & HEATH COMPANY v. H. F. STARR and H. C. PATTERSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
MORROW BROTHERS & HEATH COMPANY v. H. F. STARR and H. C. PATTERSON.
(Filed 24 November, 1915.)
Mechanics’ Hens — Materials Furnished — Defendant’s Consent — Instructions.
_ In this action to enforce a lien for material furnished in the construction of the defendant’s house, the affirmative answer by the jury on the first issue, as to the indebtedness of the nlaintiff and the amount,'"is held controlling upon the question of a lien therefor, the evidence being conflicting, and the judge having instructed the jury to answer the issue in the negative if the defendant had not consented to the purchase of the materials.
Appeal by defendant Patterson from Devin, J., at March Term, 1915, Of STANLEY.
Civil action tried upon these issues :
1. Is the defendant H. C. Patterson indebted to the plaintiff, and if so, in what amount? Answer: “Yes; $347.95, with interest added.”
2. Is the defendant H. F. Starr indebted to the plaintiff, and if so, in what amount? Answer: “No.”
R. L. Smith for plaintiff.
R. E. Austin and Jerome & Jerome for defendant.

Opinion:
PER Cueiam.
This action is brought to subject the property of the defendant Patterson to a lien for material furnished. It is unnecessary to consider the various questions presented upon this phase of the case. His Honor specifically instructed the jury that if the defendant did not give his consent to have the material furnished by the plaintiff for the construction of the house charged to the defendant Patterson, to answer the first issue "No." This eliminates all questions relating to the lien under the statute.
There is abundant evidence introduced upon the part of the plaintiff that in order to complete his house the defendant Patterson became personally responsible for the plaintiff's debt. It is true, this is denied by the defendant. The matter was submitted to the jury fairly and correctly, and we find
No error.