Ray Ex Rel. Ray v. Robinson

5 S.E.2d 127, 216 N.C. 430, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 8

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: November 1, 1939
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Upon issues of fact, determinable alone by the jury, the plaintiff has been allowed to recover accordant with settled principles of law. Winkler v. Killian, 141 N. C., 575, 54 S. E., 540; Bank v. McCullers, 201 N. C., 412, 160 S. E., 497; Landreth v. Morris, 214 N. C., 619, 200 S. E., 378.

It is established by a number of decisions, that in the absence of some express or implied gratuity, usually arising out of family relationship or mutual interdependence, services rendered by one person to or for another, which are knowingly and voluntarily received, are presumed to be given and accepted in expectation of being paid for, and the law will imply a promise to pay what they are reasonably worth. Winkler v. Killian, supra; Callahan v. Wood, 118 N. C., 752, 24 S. E., 542. Here, there is no presumption of gratuity, Stallings v. Ellis, 136 N. C., 69, 48 S. E., 548, but rather facts and circumstances from which the inference may be drawn that payment was intended on the one hand and expected on the other. Brown v. Williams, 196 N. C., 247, 145 S. E., 233. Upon this principle the case has been tried, and the record is apparently free from error.

As no reversible error has been made to appear, the verdict and judgment will be upheld. See Price v. Askins, 212 N. C., 583, 194 S. E., 284, and cases there cited.

No error.