Jenkins v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 249,249 |
| Citation | 242 N.C. 758,89 S.E.2d 471 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Arthur M. JENKINS and Charles J. Henderson v. DUCKWORTH & SHELTON, Inc. |
David H. Armstrong, Troy, and J. F. Flowers, Charlotte, for defendant, appellant.
Covington & Lobdell, Charlotte, for plaintiffs, appellees.
Both causes of action in the complaint are based upon the same express contract of employment. The answer admits an express contract of employment, the successful performance of the employment, and the expectation of paying a reasonable fee, the amount of which had not been agreed upon.
There is no question of an implied contract. There can be no implied contract where there is an enforceable express contract between the parties as to the same subject matter. McLean v. Keith, 236 N.C. 59, 72 S.E.2d 44; Lawrence v. Hester, 93 N.C. 79; 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 5. Cases relied upon by defendant are concerned with allegations of an express contract and an implied contract, and are not applicable.
'The general rule, which is subject to some qualification under statutes, is that the statement of the same cause of action in different ways or forms, each in a separate count, so as to meet different possible phases of the evidence as it may be developed at the trial, or different possible legal views, is permissible.' 71 C.J.S., Pleading, § 88, p. 215. See: 41 Am.Jur., Pleadings, p. 318.
'The plaintiff can unite two causes of action relating to the same transaction and have alternative relief.' Herring v. Cumberland Lumber Co., 159 N.C. 382, 74 S.E. 1011, 1013, 42 L.R.A.,N.S., 64.
The law in this jurisdiction does not compel the plaintiffs here to elect at their peril, between their two causes of action stated in different ways. They may assert both, leaving it to the jury or court to say which they are entitled to.
WINBORNE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keith v. Day, 8510SC548
...an implied contract with reference to the same matter. Supply Co. v. Clark, 247 N.C. 762, 102 S.E.2d 257; Jenkins v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc., 242 N.C. 758, 89 S.E.2d 471; Crowell v. Air Lines, 240 N.C. 20, 81 S.E.2d 178; McLean v. Keith, 236 N.C. 59, 72 S.E.2d 44; Manufacturing Co. v. And......
-
Boldridge v. Crowder Const. Co.
...156 S.E. 545; Beckwith v. Town of Stratford, 1942, 129 Conn. 506, 29 A.2d 775. Other cases on the subject are Jenkins v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc., 242 N.C. 758, 89 S.E.2d 471; Jenkins v. Trantham, 244 N.C. 422, 94 S.E.2d 311. Examination will disclose, however, that the cases cited are not......
-
Jenkins v. Trantham
...it to the court and jury to say which line, if either, they have carried ried the burden of establishing. Jenkins v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc., 242 N.C. 758, 89 S.E.2d 471. The court committed prejudicial error in compelling petitoners to make an election as to which line they contended was......
-
Bandy v. Gibson
...471, 472 (1955) (citations omitted). This rule applies to pleading an express contract and a claim for unjust enrichment in the alternative. Id.; James River Equip., Inc. Mecklenburg Utils., Inc., 179 N.C.App. 414, 419, 634 S.E.2d 557, 560 (2006) ("It is well-established that liberal pleadi......