Lipe v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.

178 S.E. 665, 207 N.C. 794, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 269

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: February 27, 1935
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

This is tbe same case that was before us at tbe Fall Term, 1933, opinion filed 28 February, 1934, and reported in 206 N. C., 24, 173 S. E., 316.

It is established by tbe decisions in this jurisdiction:

1. That when services are performed under an oral agreement, express or implied, that compensation is to be provided therefor in tbe will of tbe party receiving tbe benefit, and no such provision is made, an action will lie to recover for tbe breach, or to prevent an unjust enrichment, if need be, on the part of the recipient of such services. Grantham v. Grantham, 205 N. C., 363, 171 S. E., 331; Hager v. Whitener, 204 N. C., 747, 169 S. E., 645; Redmon v. Roberts, 198 N. C., 161, 150 S. E., 881; Brown v. Williams, 196 N. C., 247, 145 S. E., 233; Deal v. Wilson, 178 N. C., 600, 101 S. E., 205; Patterson v. Franklin, 168 N. C., 75, 84 S. E., 18; Whetstine v. Wilson, 104 N. C., 385, 10 S. E., 471; Miller v. Lash, 85 N. C., 52.

2. That the cause of action accrues at the time of default, which may arise from abandonment or anticipatory breach (Shore v. Holt, 185 N. C., 312, 117 S. E., 165), but which usually results from failure to make testamentary provision as promised. Harrison v. Sluder, 197 N. C., 76, 147 S. E., 684; Fertilized Co. v. Eason, 194 N. C., 244, 139 S. E., 376; Brown v. Williams, supra; Patterson v. Franklin, supra; Helsabeck v. Doub, 167 N. C., 205, 83 S. E., 241; Freeman v. Brown, 151 N. C., 111, 65 S. E., 743; Whetstine v. Wilson, supra; Miller v. Lash, supra.

3. That the measure of damages, or recoverable compensation, on facts such ,as disclosed by the present record, is the reasonable value of the services rendered. Grantham v. Grantham, supra; Nesbitt v. Donoho, 198 N. C., 147, 150 S. E., 875; Patterson v. Franklin, supra; Haircloth v. Kenlaw, 165 N. C., 228, 81 S. E., 299; 25 R. C. L., 307.

Applying these principles, as gleaned from the authorities, to the facts of the instant case, it would seem that the rulings, both as to the measure of recovery and the statute of limitations, are amply supported by the decisions. Nothing was said in Hayman v. Davis, 182 N. C., 563, 109 S. E., 554, or in McCurry v. Purgason, 170 N. C., 463, 87 S. E. 244, which militates against any of the conclusions above stated, but, in reality, all that was said in these cases, when properly interpreted, fully accords with said conclusions. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.