after stating the case: The case of Denny v. Burlington, 155 N. C., 33, is decisive of this controversy, and upion that authority, in the absence of other evidence, his Honor might have held as matter of law, upon the papers in evidence, that the relation of independent contractor was established.
In the Denny case the city of Burlington entered into a con*129tract for tbe construction of a system for water and sewerage, in which the details as to material, the work to be performed, and the time of performance were set out with particularity, and it was also provided that the materials furnished and the labor done should be done “in accordance with the specifications and plans, and the instructions to bidders and the proposal and such detailed directions, drawings, etc., that may be given by the engineer from time to time during the construction, and in full compliance with this agreement,” and that, “to prevent all dispute and litigation, it is agreed by and between the parties to this contract that the engineer shall in all cases determine the quality and quantity of the several kinds of work which are to be paid for under this contract, and his decisions shall be final and conclusive, and he shall determine all questions in relation to lines, levels, and dimensions of the work and as to the interpretations of the plans and specifications. The committee, through the engineer, shall have the right to make any alterations in the plans or quantity of the work herein contemplated, and it is expressly agreed and understood that such alterations, additions, modifications, or omissions shall not in any way violate this contract, and the contractor hereby agrees not to claim or bring suit for any damages, whether loss of profit or otherwise. . . . Whenever the contractor is not on any part of the work where it is desired by the, engineer to give instructions, the Superintendent or foreman who may be in charge of that particular part of the work shall receive and obey said instructions from the engineer. . . . But no work other than that included in the contract shall be done by the' contractor without a written order from the engineer. . . . The contractor further agrees that if the work to be done under this contract shall be abandoned, or if the contract shall be assigned' by said contractor, otherwise than herein provided, or if at any time the engineer shall be of the opinion, and shall so certify in writing to said committee, that the said work is unnecessarily or unreasonably delayed, or that the said contractor is willfully violating any of tho terms or conditions of this contract, or is not executing this contract in good faith, or is not making such *130progress in the executing1 of said work as to indicate its completion witbin tlie time specified, said committee shall have the right to notify said contractor to discontinue all work or any part thereof under this contract, and upon such notification said contractor shall discontinue said work, or such parts thereof as said committee may designate; and said committee shall thereupon have the power to employ by contract, or otherwise, and in such manner and at such prices as it may determine, any persons, etc., which it may deem necessary to work at and be used to complete the work herein described, or such part of it as said committee may have designated.” The engineer was appointed by the defendant, and it was held that the person with whom the contract was made was an independent contractor.
It will be observed that not only were the materials to be 'furnished and the labor to be done, subject to the supervision of the engineer of the defendant, but in accordance with his im structions, and that the defendant reserved the right of inspection and the right to terminate the contract. There are also other provisions extending the authority of the defendant beyond the powers conferred on the Avalon Mills in this case.
The citation from A. and E. Enc., vol. 16, p. 190, that “the fact that the employer may at any time terminate the employment, though strong evidence that the employee is a mere servant, is not conclusive in that regard,” is not, in our opinion, applicable to the contract under consideration, because, under that contract, there is no absolute right to terminate the contract at any time, but to put an end to it, if the contractor is not performing it according to the stipulations, which is reasonable and necessary. The same author, on pages 188 and 189, states with accuracy the prevailing rule as to the right to exercise supervision. He says: “A reservation of the employer of the right by himself or his agent to supervise the work for the purpose merely of determining whether it is being done in conformity to the contract does not affect the independence of the relation. The fact that the work is to be supervised by an architect representing the owner is also immaterial if this involves merely his approval or disapproval of the results of the work, and not *131directions as to tbe mode of arriving at sucb results. And it bas been held tbat a provision tbat tbe work shall be done under tbe direction and to tbe satisfaction of a representative of tbe employer does not make tbe employee a mere servant, but tbat sueb a provision is merely to secure a satisfactory performance of tbe work in compliance witb tbe contract. Nor is it material tbat tbe contract provides tbat tbe employer shall, during tbe progress of tbe work, define and direct tbe scope thereof.”
His Honor, instead of deciding tbe question as matter of law, submitted it to tbe jury in a charge which is full, clear, and accurate, and which might be copied as a correct summary of.the law in determining when one is an independent contractor, and tbe jury having decided against tbe plaintiff, there is nothing, upon tbe appeal, of which be can complain. It is to be regretted tbat be has a barren recovery for a death caused by negligence, but this consideration will not justify fixing responsibility on a party who is not liable.
We find
No error.