Sanders v. Ragan

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Citation: 90 S.E. 777
• Decision Date: 06 December 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 399.)
• Parties: SANDERS. v. RAGAN.

(172 N.C. 612)
90 S.E. 777

SANDERS.
v.
RAGAN.

(No. 399.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 6, 1916.

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Cline, Judge.

Action by Mrs. K. O. Sanders against W. H. Ragan, administrator. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. No error.

The allegations and proof on the part of plaintiff tended to show that on or about September 20, 1913, she was induced to go through the forms of marriage with defendant's intestate and lived with him as his wife, fully believing she was such, till the date of his death in February, 1915, when she ascertained that during all the time intestate had a lawful wife still living, resident elsewhere; that during said period and association plaintiff advanced him $200 in money, to be used in building a home and, in addition, had rendered him various services of value, in waiting on him in his last sickness, etc., and that said money, etc., was reasonably worth $680.

There was denial of liability on the part of defendant, and, on general issue of indebtedness, the court submitted to the jury the question of money advanced and the amount of the same, and in reference to the claim for work and labor charged the jury, among other things, in substance, that plaintiff could not recover if she had knowingly and voluntarily lived in illicit relationship with defendant during said time, and further that, if—

"plaintiff went through the form of marriage with W. W. Hinshaw, deceased, honestly believing she was marrying him, he knowing that he had a living wife and therefore could not marry, if she went into his house under those circumstances and resided with him in the apparent relationship of husband and wife, and she served him, labored for him, and those services and those labors had a value to him, that it turned out afterwards that she was not his wife, could make no claim upon his representative or his estate after his death, that in such case the law would raise for her benefit an implied promise to pay her for what the jury might find her services to be reasonably worth over and above, that is, in excess of, what benefits by way of food and clothing and keep and maintenance she received from him, if any you should find."

There was a verdict for plaintiff for $422. Judgment on verdict, and defendant excepted and appealed.

Roberson, Barnhardt & Smith, of High Point, and King & Kimball, of Greensboro, for appellant.

Clifford Frazler, of Greensboro, for appellee.

HOKE, J. [1, 2] There is conflict of authority on the question presented in this appeal, but we are of opinion that the decisions in support of plaintiff's claim have the better reason, and that the judgment in her favor should be affirmed. True, the position is fully recognized in this jurisdiction that no recovery can be had for services rendered when they are given and received without expectation of pay. Guano Co. v. Bennett, 170 N. C. 345, 87 S. E. 102, citing Winkler

[90 S.E. 778]

v. Killian, 141 N. C. 578, 54 S. E. 540, 115 Am. St. Rep. 694, and Prince v. McRae, 84 N. C. 675, but the principle should have no application to this record, where, on the...