Hatcher v. Dabbs

• Decision Date: 27 October 1903
• Citation: Hatcher v. Dabbs, 133 N.C. 239, 45 S.E. 562 (N.C. 1903)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: HATCHER. v. DABBS.

45 S.E. 562

133 N.C. 239

HATCHER.

v.DABBS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 27, 1903.

TRIAL—SUBMISSION OF ISSUES—SUFFICIENCY —PLEADING—ANSWER—COUNTERCLAIM.

1. In an action to recover for services rendered to defendant's intestate under a special contract whereby decedent, in consideration of the services, agreed to devise to plaintiff his entire estate, defendant denied such contract, and averred that another contract was entered into between the parties which was fully performed by the intestate. The court submitted to the jury the issue, what damages, if any, was plaintiff entitled to recover? Held insufficient to present to the jury all the matters in controversy between the parties, and therefore insufficient as the basis of a verdict.

2. The issue submitted, virtually implying that defendant was liable to plaintiff, and merely requiring the jury to fix the amount of the liability, was confusing and misleading, though the instructions of the court embraced the various contentions of the parties.

3. The answer of defendant in an action for the recovery for services rendered by plaintiff for defendant's intestate pursuant to a contract whereby the intestate agreed to give all her property to plaintiff, which alleged that plaintiff and the intestate entered into a different contract, which the intestate fully performed, and that plaintiff received under such contract property greater in value than the services rendered, was not a counterclaim on which defendant was entitled to judgment on plaintiff's failing to reply thereto.

Appeal from Superior Court, Anson County; O. H. Allen, Judge.

Action by Simeon E. Hatcher against J. A. Dabbs, administrator. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

H. H. McLendon, for appellant.

Jas. A. Lockhart & Son and F. J. Coxe, for appellee.

WALKER, J. This action was brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of the value of certain services alleged to have been rendered by him to the defendant's intestate under a special contract set forth in the complaint. The plaintiff alleges that in consideration of the said services, which he agreed at the time of the contract to perform for the intestate, who was at said time an old and infirm man, and greatly in need of assistance, the latter promised to devise and bequeath to the plaintiff his entire estate; that, in compliance with the said contract, the plaintiff performed the stipulated services, but that defendant's intestate failed to comply with his part of said agreement, or to devise and bequeath his property to the plaintiff, as he had promised to do; and that the services so rendered by the plaintiff were reasonably worth $1,200, which sum he seeks to recover in this action. The defendant denied that his intestate entered into the contract as alleged in the complaint, and avers that a very different contract was made between the parties, and that this contract was fully performed by the intestate. It will not be necessary to refer more particularly to the pleadings, as the foregoing statement sets forth all that is required to present the ques tion upon which the decision of this court will be given.

The court submitted the following issue to the jury: "What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant?" To the submiss ion of this issue the defendant excepted. The jury answered the issue in favor of the plaintiff, and, judgment having been entered thereon, the defendant appealed to this court.

The issue was not a proper one to be submitted to the jury by itself. It did not present to the jury for their consideration all the matters in controversy between the parties, and was therefore insufficient as the basis of a verdict and judgment. It has been settled by numerous decisions of this court that only the issues of fact raised by the pleadings should be submitted to the jury, and not mere questions of fact growing out of the evidence (Howard v. Early, 126 N. C. 170, 35 S. E. 258), and such issues as are so raised should be submitted with this qualification: that it is not required that all the issues should be thus submitted to the jury, but such of them only as are necessary to present the material matters in dispute (Shoe Co. v. Hughes, 122 N. C. 296, 29 S. E. 339; Ratiiff v. Ratliff, 131 N. C. 425, 42 S. E. 887; Warehouse Co. v. Ozment, 132 N. C. 848, 44 S. E. 681), and as will enable each of the parties to have the full benefit of his contention before the jury (Patterson v. Mills, 121 N. C. 258, 28 S. E. 368; Pretz-felder v. Ins. Co., 123 N. C. 164, 31 S. E. 470, 44 L. R. A. 424), and with this...