Roberts v. Demens Wood-Working Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1892 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. DEMENS WOOD WORKING CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Buncombe county; JOHN G. BYNUM, Judge.
Action by J. H. Roberts against the P. A. Demens Wood Working Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
The complaint, shorn of its formal parts, and after alleging defendant's incorporation, states "that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of four hundred and ninety-eight ($498) dollars, for work and late labor done by the plaintiff for said defendant, and at the request and for the benefit of said defendant; that said defendant promised to pay this plaintiff said sum of four hundred and ninety-eight ($498) dollars for said work and labor done as aforesaid; that said sum was due and payable on the 5th day of November, 1891, and before the commencement of this action, and that no part thereof has been paid, although the same has been demanded by this plaintiff, '--and demands judgment.
H. B Carter, for appellant.
Cobb & Merrimon, for appellee.
The court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover, in any aspect of the evidence, because the contract of the defendant company was not "in writing and under the seal of the corporation, or signed by some officer of the company, duly authorized," as required by Code, § 683. [1] That section and its purport were construed in Curtis v. Mining Co., 109 N.C. 401, 13 S.E. Rep. 944. It is there held that it applies to executory contracts, and protects corporations from enforcement of such, unless evidenced in the manner prescribed by the statute. But the court adds that it does not apply to cases where the corporation has received and availed itself of property sold and actually delivered to it. In such cases the company can be compelled to pay the fair value of such property. In the present case the claim is for work and labor done at a specified rate. The contract not being in writing and signed or sealed as required by the statute, the plaintiff cannot force the defendant to continue the contract as to the unexecuted part, but the plaintiff is entitled to recover a fair value for the labor already performed, and which the company has accepted, and of which it has enjoyed the benefits.
The defendant contends, however, that this action is brought upon the express contract, and that no recovery can be had upon a quantum meruit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial