
    CONCRETE STEEL COMPANY v. W. P. ROSE et al.
    (Filed 25 September, 1929.)
    Appeal and Error 3 e — Where ruling excepted to does not harm appellant a new tidal will not be granted.
    A new trial will not be granted on appeal when the action of the trial judge excepted to can by no possibility injure the appellant.
    Appeal by defendant, W. P. Rose, from Graklv, J., at April Term, 1929, of Wayne.
    Civil action to recover for steel fabricated by plaintiff and sold to tbe contractor for use in tbe construction of tbe Wilson County courthouse.
    It is conceded that tbe general contractor, W. P. Rose, is liable to tbe plaintiff for tbe value of tbe steel fabricated and used in tbe construction of said courthouse. Tbe only question in dispute is whether tbe plaintiff is liable to tbe contractor on bis counterclaim for damages sustained by him on account of a change in tbe plans, necessitating less steel and more concrete than called for in tbe original drawings, which change was approved by tbe supervising architect, E. A. Bishop. Tbe general contractor alleges that be was not notified of tbe change until it was too late to protect himself from loss. Tbe trial court 'was of tbe opinion, and so held, that any claim which tbe general contractor may have for additional concrete would not be chargeable against tbe plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly.
    No cause of action being stated against tbe other defendants, demurrers interposed by them were sustained.
    Tbe defendant, W. P. Rose, appeals, assigning errors.
    
      Langston, Allen & Taylor for playnMff.
    
    
      Kenneth O. Royáll and W. A. Finch for defendant. .
    
   Per Curiam.

Conceding, without deciding, that tbe judgment may have been irregularly entered, still it appears that tbe correct result has been reached, and no barm can come from allowing the judgment to stand. Sucb was the course pursued in Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., 517, 112 S. E., 32. It would seem that as the appealing defendant is not entitled to recover against the plaintiff on bis counterclaim, any error committed on the trial was harmless. Cherry v. Canal Co., 140 N. C., 422, 53 S. E., 138. “A new trial will not be granted when the action of the trial judge, even if erroneous, could by no possibility injure the appellant.” Butts v. Screws, 95 N. C., 215.

Tbe action of the trial court in dismissing the counterclaim and awarding judgment in favor of the plaintiff will be.upheld.

Affirmed.  