James v. Sartin Dry Cleaning Co.

181 S.E. 341, 208 N.C. 412, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 429

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: September 18, 1935
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

As tbe principal sum demanded in tbe complaint (summons) does not exceed $200, tbe justice of tbe peace bad jurisdiction of tbe action. C. S., 1475; Brantley v. Finch, 97 N. C., 91, 1 S. E., 535; Brock v. Scott, 159 N. C., 513, 75 S. E., 724.

Tbe matter is likewise cognizable in tbe courts of tbis State, tbe jurisdiction of tbe Federal Courts not having been made exclusive, either by the Constitution or Act of Congress. Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S., 130; Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S., 624; Mondou v. R. R., 223 U. S., 1.

That tbe plaintiff is entitled to sue upon tbe “President’s Reemployment Agreement,” voluntarily signed by tbe defendant, either in equity, under tbe doctrine of subrogation, or at law, as upon a contract made for tbe benefit of a third person, is fully established and supported by tbe decisions in this jurisdiction. Rector v. Lyda, 180 N. C., 577, 105 S. E., 170; Gorrell v. Water Co., 124 N. C., 328, 32 S. E., 720, 70 Am. St. Rep., 598, 46 L. R. A., 513; Baber v. Hanie, 163 N. C., 588, 80 S. E., 57.

It is said in some of tbe cases that tbe plaintiff occupies the position of a “donee beneficiary,” or, at least, that be is no less advantageously circumstanced. Bank v. Page, 206 N. C., 18, 173 S. E., 312. See annotations: 81 A. L. R., 1271, and 95 A. L. R., 42-43.

Tbe benefit, inter alia, which defendant derived from others in tbe industry signing similar agreements was sufficient consideration to make it enforceable. Fryns v. Fair Lawn Fur Dressing Co., 114 N. J. Eq., 462; Supply Co. v. Whitehurst, 202 N. C., 413, 163 S. E., 446; Rousseau v. Call, 169 N. C., 173, 85 S. E., 414; University v. Borden, 132 N. C., 476, 44 S. E., 47; Pipkin v. Robinson, 48 N. C., 152; N. J. Orthopedic Hospital v. Wright, 95 N. J. L., 462. See 60 C. J., 956.

"While tbe jury rejected most of plaintiff’s testimony, and might well have found against him on tbe merits of tbe case — it appearing that be was strongly contradicted as to tbe facts — still there is some evidence to support tbe verdict, and tbe trial court declined to set it aside as contrary to tbe weight of tbe evidence. Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686.

No action or ruling of tbe court has been called to our attention which we apprehend should be held for reversible error. Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.