Lowrie v. Oxendine
| Decision Date | 19 October 1910 |
| Parties | LOWRIE v. OXENDINE et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Executors and Administrators (§ 451*)— Action for Services — Evidence — Question for Jury.
In an action for services rendered to defendant's intestate, who was plaintiff's stepgrand-father, evidence held for the jury on the issue whether it was agreed between the plaintiff and the intestate that the plaintiff should be remunerated for his services.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. § 1879; Dec. Dig. § 451.*]
2. Work and Labor (§ 6*)—Presumption-Services by Relative—Remuneration.
The presumption that services rendered to a relative are gratuitous is rebutted by evidence of an agreement between the parties, either express or implied, that compensation should be made.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Work and Labor, Cent. Dig. § 11; Dec. Dig. § 6.*]
3. Parent and Child (§ 16*)—Emancipation —Right to Earnings.
Where a minor son contracts on his own account for his services with the knowledge of his father, who makes no objection, there is an implied emancipation.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Parent and Child, Cent. Dig. §§ 165-175; Dec. Dig. § 16.*]
4. Parent and Child (§ 16*)—Emancipation —Evidence.
Evidence held to show that plaintiff had been emancipated by his father.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Parent and Child, Cent. Dig. § 174; Deo. Dig. § 16.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Robeson County; W. R. Allen, Judge.
Action by E. P. Lowrie against Alva Oxen-dine, guardian, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
This action was brought to recover the value of services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff to the intestate of the defendant. The intestate was the stepgrand-father of the plaintiff. With respect to the relationship of the parties, the court charged the jury that ordinarily when one renders services for another, in the absence of an express promise to pay for them, the law implies a promise to pay the reasonable value of such services, but this is not the rule as between a child and its parent, or one standing in the relation of a parent. In that case, the presumption is that the services were rendered gratuitously—that is, without any intention to charge for the same—and, in order to recover for services thus rendered, the plaintiff must show a promise to pay for them, and consequently, in this case, the burden is upon the plaintiff to satisfy the jury by the greater weight of evidence that H. T. Oxendine, the stepgrandfather of the plaintiff, promised to pay him for the services rendered. If the plaintiff had so satisfied the jury, he is entitled to recover what they find from the evidence to be the reasonable value of the services, but, if the jury find that there was no promise, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover anything. There were other instructions given to the jury, but it is not necessary that they should be set forth. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment thereon the defendant appealed.
Robt. E. Lee and McNeill & McNeill, for appellants.
McIntyre, Lawrence & Proctor, for appellee.
There are many exceptions appearing in the record, but it is necessary to consider only one or two questions in order to dispose of the real matters in controversy. The court stated to the jury in its charge the correct rule applicable to cases of this kind, and there was evidence to support the instruction. The plaintiff lived with his grandfather for several years, and during that time he managed his business and took care of him during his illness. There was evidence tending to show that his grandfather repeatedly stated in the presence of others that he intended to pay him for his services, and that the plaintiff expected to receive compensation for them. It was for the jury to decide upon the evidence whether it was mutually understood by and agreed between the parties that the plaintiff should be remunerated for his services.
The presumption arising from the relation of the parties that services were performedby one of them for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Simpson, 454
...there has been an emancipation with respect thereto. Jolley v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 204 N.C. 136, 167 S.E. 575; Lowrie v. Oxendine, 153 N.C. 267, 69 S.E. 131; Ingram v. Southern Railroad, 152 N.C. 762, 67 S.E. With respect to emancipation and the purchase of an automobile, the facts......
-
Cybur Lumber Co. v. Erkhart
... ... 833; ... Langbrne v. Simongton, 66 So. 85; Whitson v. Am ... Bridge Co. of N. Y., 166 S.W. 814; Lowrie v ... Oxendine et al., 69 S.E. 131; Rumbley v. So. R ... Co., 69 S.E. 416; Mercer v. Lloyd Transfer Co., ... 110 P. 389; Wallsend Coal & ... ...
-
Twiford v. Waterfield
...same. Young v. Herman, 97 N.C. 280, 1 S.E. 792; Staley v. Lowe, 197 N.C. 243, 148 S.E. 240; Lindley v. Frazier, supra; Lowrie v. Oxendine, 153 N.C. 267, 69 S.E. 131. Services performed by one member of a family for another within the unity of the family rule are presumed to have been render......
-
Jolley v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... emancipation and an assent that the son shall be entitled to ... the earnings in his own right." Lowrie v ... Oxendine, 153 N.C. 267, 69 S.E. 131. See, also, ... Daniel v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 171 N.C. 23, 86 ... S.E. 174; Holland v. Hartley, ... ...