Case Name: K. M. BIGGS TRACTOR SALES, INC. v. JAMES FURMAN SCOTT
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1971-07-14
Citations: 12 N.C. App. 39
Docket Number: No. 7116DC401
Parties: K. M. BIGGS TRACTOR SALES, INC. v. JAMES FURMAN SCOTT
Judges: Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 39–40

Head Matter:
K. M. BIGGS TRACTOR SALES, INC. v. JAMES FURMAN SCOTT
No. 7116DC401
(Filed 14 July 1971)
Appeal by plaintiff from Britt, District Judge, 15 February 1971 Session of District Court held in Robeson County.
Plaintiff sought to recover for labor and materials furnished in repairing defendant’s tractor and to recover possession of the tractor in order to enforce a mechanics lien. Defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and sought, by way of counterclaim, to recover on an alleged (1) breach of warranty on a new motor purchased from plaintiff, (2) for an overcharge paid on the purchase price, and (3) for the cost of needed repairs to the motor.
After hearing the evidence, the judge submitted issues to the jury which were answered as follows:
“1. What amount, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant on account of the repair contract as alleged in the complaint?
Answer: None
2. Did defendant remove his tractor from plaintiff’s premises without the consent of the plaintiff?
Answer: No
3. What amount, if any, is defendant entitled to recover of plaintiff because of the breach of warranty and overcharge as alleged in the answer?
Breach of Warranty None
Overcharge None
Total None”
From the judgment entered on the verdict, the plaintiff appealed.
Johnson, Hedgpeth, Biggs & Campbell by I. Murchison Biggs for plaintiff appellant.
No counsel of record for defendant appellee.

Opinion:
MALLARD, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff makes eleven assignments of error: nine are to various portions of the charge, one relates to the issues submitted, and the other is to the denial of plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict.
We have carefully considered all of plaintiff's assignments of error and are of the opinion that no prejudicial error is made to appear.
No error.
Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur.