Volume 29 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

1. Pleadings 38 — judgment on pleadings — findings of fact The court is not required to find facts in a judgment on the pleadings since the facts determining disposition are those alleged in the pleadings; and the court cannot select some of the alleged facts as a basis for granting judgment on the pleadings if other allegations, together with the selected facts, establish material issues of fact.<page_number>Page 723</page_number> 2. Contracts 17; Laborers' and Materialmen's Liens 2 — breach of oral contract — delay of work — subsequent written contract — priority of lien for labor and materials Where plaintiff's complaint shows that it elected to delay work under a June 1973 oral contract when defendant breached the oral contract by failing to execute with his wife a written contract and by failing to make periodic payments within a reasonable time, but that it did not terminate and abandon the contract, and that plaintiff completed the work after a written contract dated 27 November 1973 was executed on 1 January 1974, the trial court erred in concluding that the oral contract was a separate and independent contract from the written contract, that plaintiff's claim for labor and materials furnished under the oral contract was not filed within 120 days, that labor and materials furnished under the written contract of 27 November did not precede the date of a bank's deed of trust recorded on 2 October 1973, and that judgment on the pleadings should be rendered for defendant bank in plaintiff's action to have its claim for labor and materials given a priority from 27 June 1973, the date labor and materials were first furnished under the oral contract. 3. Husband and Wife 3; Laborers' and Materialmen's Liens 2 — contract by husband — agency of husband for wife — ratification by written contract by both spouses Plaintiff's complaint was sufficient to support an inference that the male defendant was the agent for his wife in making an oral contract with plaintiff where it alleged that a written contract was subsequently executed by both the male defendant and his wife.

1. Master and Servant 56 — accident arising out of course and scope of employment To be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, an accident must arise out of the course and scope of employment, and where the fruit of certain labor accrues either directly or indirectly to the benefit of an employer, employees injured in the course of such work are entitled to compensation. G.S. <cross_reference>97-1</cross_reference> et seq. 2. Master and Servant 56 — act outside normal duties — performance at direction of superior — compensability for injury When a superior directs a subordinate employee to go on an errand or to perform some duty beyond his normal duties, the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act expands to encompass injuries sustained in the course of such labor; moreover, the order need not be couched in the imperative, but it is sufficient for compensation purposes that the suggestion, request or even the employee's mere perception of what is expected of him under his job classification, serves to motivate undertaking an injury producing activity. 3. Master and Servant 56 — act outside normal duties — performance at direction of superior — compensability for injury The Industrial Commission correctly found that plaintiff's employer benefited from plaintiff's help in building a shed, the building was undertaken at the behest of plaintiff's superior officer, and plaintiff's injury sustained during that activity was compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, even though the activity took place during plaintiff's off hours and was not one of the regular duties of his employment.