Brown v. Williams

• Decision Date: 07 November 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 216.)
• Citation: 145 S.E. 233
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BROWN. v. WILLIAMS.

145 S.E. 233

(196 N.C. 247)

BROWN.

v.WILLIAMS.

(No. 216.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 7, 1928.

Appeal from Superior Court, Duplin County; Harris, Judge.

Action by L. J. Brown against J. E. Williams, executor of the will of A. F. Williams, Sr, deceased. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. New trial granted.

The plaintiff complains and alleges: (1) In the original complaint that he was no relation to A. F. Williams, defendant's testator, but from about April 19, 1923, to April 19, 1926, three years prior to the death of A. F. Williams, he rendered valuable services to said A. F. Williams, setting them forth in detail, and they were reasonably worth $45 a month, totaling $1,620, that the services were rendered at his request and for his benefit, and accepted by him. (2) In the amended complaint: That he rendered valuable services, setting them forth in detail, to said A. F. Williams, from December 16, 1919, continuously up to the date of the death of A. F. Williams, April 19, 1926, a period of six years and four months, reasonably worth and totaling $4,620; that the said A. F. Williams, while said services were being performed, and he was receiving the use, benefit, and comfort of the plaintiff's constant work and labor, contracted and agreed with the plaintiff that at his (the said A. F. Williams') death he would leave the plaintiff well provided for, and would more than repay plaintiff for said services, and would give him something that the plaintiff would be proud of, and the plaintiff, relying upon the said promises of the said A. F. Williams to thus pay plaintiff for all his work and labor, as above set out, continued to do the same till the death of the said A. F. Williams, and he never received anything therefor from said A. F. Williams, substantially alleging an express contract to make testamentary provision. This was denied by defendant.

The evidence bearing on the express contract to make testamentary provision is as follows: Evidence of the different witnesses:

"He said that if it were not for Luther (speaking of plaintiff), he didn't know what he would do, that Luther was his dependence, and he would have to reward him for it. He didn't sap how he was going to reward him. * * * He said he was going to reward Luther for his help." "He told me he was going to give him something he would be proud of and appreciate when he was gone." "He said 'Luther is my main help and my aim is to give him something that will reward him when I am dead and gone.' And he said 'Luther has done more for me than my own children, and I appreciate everything you all have done for me, and your little children are so sweet to run in here and pump my water.' " "He said T am going to reward Luther with something he will be proud of and appreciate when I am dead and gone."

None of these statements were made in the presence of plaintiff, and they were made at intervals, and mostly during the last years of A. F. Williams' life.

Plaintiff lived with his father, who rented from A. F. Williams a farm of some 60 acres, about 150 to 200 yards from the Williams home. A. F. Williams and his wife practically lived alone. They were both, during the period, in declining health, and both died at the age of about 80 years. Mr. Williams died April 20, 1926, and Mrs. Williams June 20, 1926.

The issues submitted to the jury, and their answers thereto, were as follows:

"1. Did the plaintiff, L. J. Brown, and the defendant's testator, A. F. Williams, enter into the contract alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"2. If so, did the plaintiff, L. J. Brown, perform services and do work and labor for said A. F. Williams, under said contract, as.alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"3. What was the fair and reasonable worth of said services and labor of said L. J. Brown? Answer: $1,824.00."

The defendant tendered the following issue:

"What amount, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant for labor and services performed within three years next prior to the death of defendant's intestate (testator)?"

This was refused by the court below; defendant excepted and assigned error.

At the close of plaintiff's testimony, defendant moved that the cause of action of plaintiff, so far as it alleged any contract to make a testamentary provision for the plaintiff by the defendant's testator, A. F. Williams, be nonsuited. This was refused by the court below; defendant excepted and assigned error.

A. McL. Grahem, of Clinton, and H. D. Williams, of Kenansville, for appellant.

Beasley & Stevens and Gavin & Boney, all of Kenansville, for appellee.

CLARKSON, J. The questions involved: First. Was the evidence offered by the plaintiff of an express contract to make testamentary provision for the plaintiff sufficient to be submitted to the jury? We think not. In Overall Co. v. Holmes, 186 N. C. at pages 431, 432, 119 S. E. 818, it is said:

"A contract is 'an agreement, upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing.' 2 Blackstone Com. p. 442. There is no contract unless the parties assent to the same thing in the same sense. A contract is the agreement of two minds—the coming together of two minds on a thing done or to be done. 'A contract, express or implied, executed or executory, results from the concurrence of minds of two or more persons, and its legal consequences are not dependent upon the impressions or understandings of one alone of the parties to it. It is not what either thinks, but what both agree' "—citing numerous authorities

See Merchants' Bank & Trust Co. v. Watson, 187 N. C. 107, 121 S. E. 181; Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation v. Sanders, 190 N. C. 203, 129 S. E. 607; Greene v. Jackson, 190 N. C. 789, 130 S. E. 732; Standard Sand & Gravel Co. v. Casualty Co., 191 N. C. 313, 131 S. E. 754.

There is nothing to indicate, in the expressions made by defendant's testator, any certain or definite promise or contract, either express or implied, to make a testamentary provision in his will in favor of plaintiff. The expressions were not even made to plaintiff, but to others. It was an appreciation and intention, but not an obligation. Dodson v. McAdams, 96 N. C. 149, 2 S. E. 453, 60 Am. Rep. 408; Avitt v. Smith, 120 N. C. 392, 27 S. E. 91.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that, where services are performed under a contract, compensation is to be provided...