Ray v. Robinson
| Citation | 216 N.C. 430,5 S.E.2d 127 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 174.,174. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | RAY. v. ROBINSON. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Yancey County; S. J. Ervin, Special Judge.
Action by Iris Ray, by her next friend, Champ Ray, against Edith Robinson, administratrix, for personal services rendered as a servant in the home of John L. Young. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
No error.
Civil action to recover for personal services.
The record discloses that on April 24, 1934, Iris Ray, a minor, went to the home of John L. Young as a servant in the house principally to wait upon his mother, Mrs. Lodema Young, who was quite old and infirm, and there worked with expectation of pay until the death of Mrs. Young on December 4, 1937.
This action is to recover for the reasonable value of the services rendered. Plaintiff's father, in open court, waived any right of recovery on his part for plaintiff's services. The complaint was accordingly amended and the jury found, upon issues duly submitted, that plaintiff was entitled to recover $1,065, and that plaintiff's father aforetime had consented for her to receive the compensation therefor.
From judgment on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Anglin & Randolph, of Burnsville, for appellant.
Huskins & Wilson, of Burnsville, for appellee.
Upon issues of fact, determinable alone by the jury, the plaintiff has been allowed to recover accordant with settled principles of law. Winkler v. Killian, 141 N.C. 575, 54 S.E. 540, 115 Am.St.Rep. 694; Farmers' Bank v. McCullers, 201 N.C. 412, 160 S.E. 497; Landreth v. Morris, 214 N. C. 619, 200 S.E. 378.
It is established by a number of decisions that in the absence of some express or implied gratuity, usually arising out of family relationship or mutual interdependence, services rendered by one person to or for another, which are knowingly and voluntarily received, are presumed to be given and accepted in expectation of being paid for, and the law will imply a promise to pay what they are reasonably worth. Winkler v. Killian, supra; Callahan v. Wood, 118 N.C. 752, 24 S.E. 542. Here, there is no presumption of gratuity, Stallings v. Ellis, 136 N.C. 69, 48 S.E. 548, but rather facts and circumstances from which the inference may be drawn that payment was intended on the one hand and expected on the other. Brown v. Williams, 196 N.C. 247, 145 S.E. 233. Upon this principle the case has been tried, and the record is apparently free from error.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCraw v. Llewellyn
...rendered, plaintiff would be entitled to recover the fair value of the services rendered. As said by Stacy, C. J., in Ray v. Robinson, 216 N.C. 430, 5 S.E.2d 127: 'It is established by a number of decisions that in the absence of some express or implied gratuity, usually arising out of fami......
- Stewart v. Wyrick, 741.
-
Stewart v. Wyrick
... ... received in expectation of being paid for, and will imply a ... promise to pay what they are reasonably worth" ... Winkler v. Killian, 141 N.C. 575, 54 S.E. 540, 541, ... 115 AM.St.Rep. 694; Patterson v. Franklin, 168 N.C ... 75, 84 S.E. 18; Ray v. Robinson, 216 N.C. 430, 5 ... S.E.2d 127. True it is, that in certain family relationships, ... services performed by one member of the family for another, ... are presumed to have been rendered in obedience to an ... obligation of kinship with no thought of compensation ... Francis v. Francis, 223 ... ...
-
Twiford v. Waterfield
...find sanction in the decisions of this Court. Hauser v. Sain, 74 N.C. 552; Winkler v. Killian, 141 N.C. 575, 54 S.E. 540; Ray v. Robinson, 216 N.C. 430, 5 S.E.2d 127; Grady v. Faison, 224 N.C. 567, 31 S.E.2d 760; Stewart v. Wyrick, 228 N.C. 429, 45 S.E.2d 764. In fact, the excerpt numbered ......