Grimes v. Beaufort County

• Decision Date: 18 September 1940
• Docket Number: 18.
• Citation: 10 S.E.2d 640,218 N.C. 164
• Parties: GRIMES v. BEAUFORT COUNTY et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

10 S.E.2d 640

218 N.C. 164

GRIMES v. BEAUFORT COUNTY et al.

No. 18.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 18, 1940

Civil action to recover compensation for services rendered as an attorney.

Plaintiff was retained by defendants to prosecute an action to its termination against the sinking fund commissioner of Beaufort County and his sureties for an accounting and to recover sinking fund assets. The plaintiff alleges that after the termination of the action against the sinking fund commissioner he rendered services to the defendants in the collection of mortgages by foreclosures and by negotiations for settlement and the like for which he is due compensation.

The defendants answering admit that plaintiff was employed to prosecute said action and assert that such litigation was terminated by final judgment in 1936 and no claim was filed for compensation until more than two years thereafter. They plead the Two Year Statute of Limitations. C.S. § 442. The defendants further allege that services rendered by plaintiff after the termination of the civil action were rendered as county attorney under a contract of employment on a salary basis; that the salary has been paid; and the plaintiff has been fully compensated for said services.

On motion of the plaintiff and over the objection of the defendants the cause was referred and the defendants excepted and appealed.

E A. Daniel, of Washington, for defendants appellants.

Rodman & Rodman and Carter & Carter, all of Washington, for plaintiff appellee.

BARNHILL Justice.

The plaintiff in his complaint lists twenty-one different transactions in which he rendered services to the county exclusive of his appearance as counsel in the action against the sinking fund commissioner and his sureties and in addition to certain collections made on the judgment rendered in the civil action. These various items extend over a period from December, 1936, to January, 1938.

It may not be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff's cause of action does not require the consideration of a long account. C.S. § 573. Therefore, defendants' exception to the order of reference on this ground cannot be sustained.

But the defendants contend that they have interposed a plea in bar and that an order of reference prior to the adjudication of this plea was erroneous.

The plea in bar is to the claim for compensation for services rendered in the civil action, the defendants...