Canady v. Creech

5 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Middleton

    86 N.C. App. 63 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    Strickland, supra, at 732, 207 S.E.2d at 400-01. The law in this area was reviewed by the North Carolina Supreme Court in the case of Canady v. Creech, 288 N.C. 354, 218 S.E.2d 383 (1975). In Canady, the Court determined that the plaintiff's Claim of Lien was not defective because there was an obvious scrivener's error which could not mislead anyone.

  2. Tarrant v. Hudson

    729 S.E.2d 732 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012)

    We hold that the acceptance of service, under the circumstances of this case, is insufficient to give rise to an issue of fact regarding Ms. Crosby–Zuravel's liability to plaintiff for negligence by a lawyer associated with the firm. See Canady v. Creech, 288 N.C. 354, 358, 218 S.E.2d 383, 386 (1975) (holding that party could not avoid enforcement of claim of lien by taking advantage of obvious scrivener's error). Therefore, the trial court properly granted Ms. CrosbyZuravel's motion for summary judgment.

  3. Lashni v. Hanhan

    169 N.C. App. 842 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant next argues the trial court erred when it granted an order of possession, without making findings of fact as to why it granted an order of possession for building 2438, when the complaint was for building 2436. In Canady v. Creech, 288 N.C. 354, 356, 218 S.E.2d 383, 385 (1975), our Supreme Court stated that obvious clerical errors which could not mislead any interested party were not prejudicial. Here, the complaint sought possession of building 2436.

  4. Gaston Grading and Landscaping v. Young

    449 S.E.2d 475 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    Unlike other cases in which this Court and the North Carolina Supreme Court have reviewed, there is no obvious clerical error. See Canady v. Creech, 288 N.C. 354, 218 S.E.2d 383 (1975); Brown v. Middleton, 86 N.C. App. 63, 356 S.E.2d 386. In the case sub judice, plaintiff intentionally attempted to revive its failed first claim of lien by listing the same date of their first furnishing and the amount listed in the prior lien.

  5. Builders, Inc. v. Bank

    220 S.E.2d 414 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    " G.S. 44A-13 provides that an action to enforce the lien may be instituted in any county in which the lien is filed but "no such action may be commenced later than 180 days after the last furnishing of labor or materials at the site of the improvement by the person claiming the lien." The law in this general area recently has been re-examined by our State Supreme Court in Canady v. Creech, 288 N.C. 354, 356, 218 S.E.2d 383 (1975), wherein the Court held that when the date of first furnishing of labor and material listed in a Claim of Lien contains an "`. . . obvious clerical error which could not mislead any interested party . . .'" the actual purported date of first furnishing should be given effect and the purportedly incorrect listed date shown on the face of the claim should be disregarded. (Emphasis supplied.