Bruhl v. Newbern Banking & Trust Co

• Citation: 90 S.E. 9
• Decision Date: 04 October 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 172.)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: DE BRUHL. v. NEWBERN BANKING & TRUST CO.

(172 N.C. 839)

90 S.E. 9

DE BRUHL.

v.NEWBERN BANKING & TRUST CO.

(No. 172.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 4, 1916.

Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; Whedbee, Judge.

Action by Joel E. De Bruhl against the Newbern Banking & Trust Company, executor of David E. De Bruhl. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepts and appeals. Affirmed.

On issues submitted, the jury rendered the following verdict:

"(1) Did David E. De Bruhl, the testator of defendant, contract and agree with the plaintiff that if plaintiff would render the services declared on in the complaint, he would will to the plaintiff his entire estate as alleged? Answer: No. * * *

"(5) If 'No' to first issue, is the defendant indebted to plaintiff for services rendered by plaintiff and wife to testator of defendant during the three years next preceding the death of said David E. De Bruhl, and, if so, in what sum? Answer: Yes. Fifteen hundred dollars and interest."

Judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.

Moore & Dunn and T. D. Warren, all of Newbern, for appellant.

A. D. Ward and Wm. F. Ward, both of Newbern, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. [1, 2] The court is unable to see any reason why this verdict and judgment should be disturbed. There was allegation, with evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to show that for ten years before testator died, plaintiff had performed faithful and onerous duties in caring for and looking after the testator and his aged wife, and for the last three years the said testator had lived in the home of plaintiff, and his wife with him till she died, about six months before her husband; that when they came to plaintiff's house to live, the wife was blind, and he had consumption, and both were old, feeble, and practically helpless, requiring almost constant attention, and that the services were well worth $2,500. There was also evidence on the part of plaintiff that the services were given and received in expectation of being paid for, and some of the testimony tended to show that they were given and received under a contract that the testator was to will plaintiff his property. The jury found there was no contract to will the property, but that the services rendered by plaintiff to the testator for the last three years of his life were reasonably worth the sum of $1,500, and, under the charge of his honor, that these services were given and received in expectation of being paid for.

Winkler v. Killian, 141 N. C. 575, 54 S....