Legal Opinion

Honeycutt v. . Kenilworth Development Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 10, 1930PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBbogdeN, J.

Tbe particular point presented by tbis appeal is wbetber tbe plaintiffs are entitled to a lien upon lot No. 7.

Tbe defendant, Kenilworth Development Company, owned lot No. 7, but tbe record does not disclose any contract or agreement whatever between said Development Company and West and Hazelrigg who undertook to build a bouse thereon. In other words, West and Hazel-rigg, through mistake, purchased building material and commenced tbe erection of a bouse on a lot which they did not own, and, therefore, there existed no contractual relation between West and Hazelrigg and tbe defendant…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Southern Aluminum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  2. North Carolina Lumber Co. v. Spear Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Rose v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  4. Weir v. . PageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  5. Borden Brick & Tile Co. v. PulleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Brown v. . WardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. McNinch v. . Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  3. RANLO SUPPLY COMPANY v. ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  4. Boykin v. . LoganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API