Burton v. Kenyon, 7919DC846
Decision Date | 15 April 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 7919DC846,7919DC846 |
Citation | 46 N.C.App. 309,264 S.E.2d 808 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ottway BURTON v. David Paul KENYON and Charles "Red" Delk. |
Ottway Burton, pro se.
T. Worth Coltrane, Asheboro, for defendant-appellee, Charles Delk.
Where the record on appeal contains no affidavits, answers to interrogatories, or anything else other than the pleadings upon which to base decision, the motion for summary judgment will be considered as though made under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(c), of the Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment on the pleadings. Reichler v. Tillman, 21 N.C.App. 38, 203 S.E.2d 68 (1974).
When a motion for judgment on the pleadings is made, the trial court is required to view the facts and permissible inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all well pleaded factual allegations in the non-moving party's pleadings must be taken as true. Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 209 S.E.2d 494 (1974).
When plaintiff's allegations are viewed in that light, taking into consideration all permissible inferences, they tend to show that prior to 16 November 1976, he had agreed to represent defendant Kenyon in four criminal cases; that one of the two promissory notes executed for security of payment by Kenyon was due and unpaid; that some professional services had been rendered to that point; and that two days prior to completion of his services, he, defendant Delk, and defendant Kenyon agreed to a plan where Delk would deduct and forward plaintiff $50 weekly from Kenyon's pay until the debt was paid.
The sole question arising from these facts is whether an agreement entered into by a third person to deduct and forward a sum of money to plaintiff in order to induce performance of an obligation owed by plaintiff to another person, who is an employee of the third person making the promise, but who is in default of his obligation to pay, is void because of lack of consideration. We answer, "No."
It is generally established that a promise to perform an act which the promisor is already bound to perform is insufficient consideration for a promise by the adverse party, Sinclair v. Travis, 231 N.C. 345, 57 S.E.2d 394 (1950); Tile and Marble Co. v. Construction Co., 16 N.C.App. 740, 193 S.E.2d 338 (1972), and undoubtedly, this is sound policy. But the same factors do not come into play where a third person is involved.
Restatement of Contracts § 84 (1932) provides in pertinent part:
The rationale of the Restatement rule is best set forth in 1A. Corbin on Contracts § 176 (1950) wherein it is stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A.
...motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), or a motion for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). See Burton v. Kenyon, 46 N.C.App. 309, 264 S.E.2d 808 (1980). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissals of the wrongful death claim by Glenn W. Johnson as admini......
-
Higgins v. Synergy Coverage Solutions, LLC
... ... recognize a right to her continued employment. See ... Mancuso v. Burton Farm Dev. Co. , 229 N.C.App. 531, ... 542-43, 748 S.E.2d 738, 746-47 (2013) (enforcing merger ... insufficient" consideration); Burton v. Kenyon , ... 46 N.C.App. 309, 311, 264 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1980) (holding ... "a promise to perform an act ... ...
-
Ripellino v. N.C. School Boards Ass'n, Inc.
...party, and all well pleaded factual allegations in the non-moving party's pleadings must be taken as true." Burton v. Kenyon, 46 N.C.App. 309, 310, 264 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1980). A motion for judgment on the pleadings has some similarities to motions for dismissal for failure to state a claim ......
-
Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A.
...of plaintiffs' pleadings shall be judged by those standards appropriate to a judgment on the pleadings. See Burton v. Kenyon, 46 N.C.App. 309, 310, 264 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1980) (where record on appeal contained only pleadings on which to base decision, court treated summary judgment motion as......