Graham v. Hoke, 246.
Decision Date | 31 May 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 246.,246. |
Citation | 219 N.C. 755,14 S.E.2d 790 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | GRAHAM. v. HOKE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Lee County; Q. K. Nimocks, Jr., Judge.
Action by Lillian Graham against Margaret Hoke, administratrix of the estate of J. G. Phillips, deceased, on a written agreement. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Hastings, Booe & Abbott, of Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellee.
K. R. Hoyle, of Sanford, for defendant-appellant.
The pertinent portions of the complaint are as follows:
The alleged "written agreement" is in words and figures as follows (italics indicate handwriting in ink, the balance of instrument being a printed form):
"Winston-Salem, N. C.
Order of Lillian Graham at my death $2000.00 Two Thousand Dollars out of my estate payable $500 at each payment till all has been paid.
J. G. Phillips".
The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the grounds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The "written agreement" alleged in the complaint cannot be construed ex vi termini as a valid contract to pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coley v. Dalrymple, 236.
...contract or on implied assumpsit or quantum meruit. Lawrence v. Hester. 93 N.C. 79. If on the former, it must fail. Graham v. Hoke, 219 N.C. 755, 14 S.E.2d 790. If on the latter, it may survive in part. Hayman v. Davis, 182 N.C. 563, 109 S.E. 554.I. The Special Count. The record is wanting ......
-
Coley v. Dalrymple
...208 N.C. 137, 179 S.E. 443; Lipe v. Citizens' Bank & Trust Co., 207 N.C. 794, 178 S.E. 665; McIntosh on Procedure, 420. See Graham v. Hoke, supra, and Hayman v. Davis, supra. the plaintiff alleged a contract to pay for services performed, and, upon the trial, failed to prove a special contr......
-
Nussbaum v. Wooster Baptist Temple
...Wilson v. Milner Hotels, Inc., 116 Mont. 424, 154 P.2d 265 at page 268; Ondrasek v. Ondrasek, 172 Kan. 100, 238 P.2d 535; Graham v. Hoke, 219 N.C. 755, 14 S.E.2d 790; Fraser v. Collier Const. Co., 305 Mich. 1, 8 N.W.2d 889; Maasdam v. Maasdam's Estate, 237 Iowa 877, 24 N.W.2d 316 at page 32......
-
Graham v. Hoke
...14 S.E.2d 790 219 N.C. 755 GRAHAM v. HOKE. No. 246.Supreme Court of North CarolinaMay 31, Hastings, Booe & Abbott, of Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellee. K. R. Hoyle, of Sanford, for defendant-appellant. SCHENCK, Justice. The pertinent portions of the complaint are as follows: "3. That o......