Knuckles v. Spaugh, 26 N.C. App. 340 (1975)

June 18, 1975 · North Carolina Court of Appeals · Nos. 7521DC246 and 7521DC247

26 N.C. App. 340

WILLIAM KNUCKLES and CORINTHEA RICHARDSON v. BEATRICE SPAUGH and PAUL R. JOHNSON, T. E. JOHNSON, JR., and RAY B. JOHNSON, d/b/a T. E. JOHNSON AND SONS

Nos. 7521DC246 and 7521DC247

(Filed 18 June 1975)

Landlord and Tenant § 19 — recovery of rent paid — violation of housing code — dwelling unfit for habitation

A tenant is not entitled to recover rents already paid on the theory that the rented dwelling was maintained by the landord in violation of the city housing code and was unfit for human habitation.

Appeal by plaintiffs and defendants from Clifford, Judge. Judgments and orders signed 31 December 1974, 2 January and 13 January 1975 in District Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 May 1975.

Gerald C. Kell and Reita P. Pendry, for plaintiffs.

Richard Tyndall,. Robert A. Wicker and R. Bradford Leg-gett, for defendants.

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiffs’ appeal presents essentially the same questions raised in Thompson v. Shoemaker, 7 N.C. App. 687, 173 S.E. 2d 627 (1970). Plaintiffs concede that in Thompson this court followed the applicable decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court but urge that this court ignored the “spirit of the times.” This court will, of course, continue to adhere to the opinions of the Supreme Court according to our best knowledge and understanding of the meaning of cases decided by that court. Moreover, the lawmaking body of this State, the legislative branch, has just recently declined to enact legislation which would have brought about many of the changes in the law that plaintiffs urge this court to make by judicial decision. See H.B. 598, “Landlord and Tenant Act,” N. C. General Assembly (1975) (Committee Substitute tabled 4 June 1975 in the House of Representatives.) On plaintiffs’ appeal, the judgment is affirmed.

On defendants’ appeal, the only question is whether the judge erred in allowing plaintiffs to appeal as paupers. We hold that he did not.

The judgments are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.