Legal Opinion

Goldston v. RANDOLPH MACHINE TOOL COMPANY

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 12, 1956No. 527PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHiggiNS, J.

The plaintiff alleged and offered evidence tending to show (1) he performed labor and furnished material as subcontractor in the construction of a new dwelling which the corporate defendant contracted to build for the individual defendants; (2) the contractor failed to pay for the work done; (3) the plaintiff filed a claim with the individual defendants, or their agent, as provided in G.S. 44-6 to G.S. 44-9, before they completed payment to the contractor; (4) they failed and refused to pay the plaintiff his pro rata share of the amount due on the contract.

• The plaintiff’s evidence, when…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Southern Aluminum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  2. Guilford Lumber Manufacturing Co. v. HolladaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  3. Pavone Ex Rel. Pavone v. MerionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  4. Economy Pumps, Inc. v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  5. Harrison v. KappSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Norburn v. MacKieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Tucker v. MoorefieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  3. Johnson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API