Jenkins v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc.

89 S.E.2d 471, 242 N.C. 758, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 684
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 19, 1955
Docket249
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 89 S.E.2d 471 (Jenkins v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jenkins v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc., 89 S.E.2d 471, 242 N.C. 758, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 684 (N.C. 1955).

Opinion

PARKER, J.

Both causes of action in the complaint are based upon the same express contract of employment. The answer admits an express contract of employment, the successful performance of the employment, and the expectation of paying a reasonable fee, the amount of which had not been agreed upon.

There is no question of an implied contract. There can be no implied contract where there is an enforceable express contract between the parties as to the same subject matter. McLean v. Keith, 236 N.C. 59, 72 S.E. 2d 44; Lawrence v. Hester, 93 N.C. 79; 17 C.J.S., Contracts, Sec. 5. Cases relied upon by defendant are concerned with allegations of an express contract and an implied contract, and are not applicable.

“The general rule, which is subject to some qualification under statutes, is that the statement of the same cause of action in different ways or forms, each in a separate count, so as to meet different possible phases of the evidence as it may be developed at the trial, or different possible legal views, is permissible.” 71 C.J.S., Pleadings, p. 215. See: 41 Am. Jur., Pleadings, p. 318.

“The plaintiff can unite two causes of action relating to the same transaction and have alternative relief.” Herring v. Lumber Co., 159 N.C. 382, 74 S.E. 1011.

The law in this jurisdiction does not compel the plaintiffs here to elect at their peril, between their two causes of action stated in different ways. They may assert both, leaving it to the jury or court to say which they are entitled to.

The ruling of the court below is

Affirmed.

WiNBORNE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bandy v. a Perfect Fit for You, Inc.
2017 NCBC 63 (North Carolina Business Court, 2017)
Keith v. Day
343 S.E.2d 562 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Vetco Concrete Company v. TROY LUMBER COMPANY
124 S.E.2d 905 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Boldridge v. Crowder Construction Co.
108 S.E.2d 215 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Jenkins v. Trantham
94 S.E.2d 311 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 S.E.2d 471, 242 N.C. 758, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-duckworth-shelton-inc-nc-1955.