Stewart v. Wyrick
| Decision Date | 19 December 1947 |
| Docket Number | 741. |
| Citation | 45 S.E.2d 764,228 N.C. 429 |
| Parties | STEWART v. WYRICK et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Civil action to recover for services rendered by plaintiff to J.G. Stewart during the last 20 or 25 years of his life, it being alleged that "the said J.G. Stewart proposed to, and agreed with, this plaintiff that he would pay her for all of her said services to be rendered and for all funds advanced by her in his behalf (in purchasing their home and) for his support, by willing to her, to take effect at his death, all (of said properties so purchased and all other) property which he owned at his death".
There is ample evidence to show the contract as alleged. Plaintiff's eldest son says "he told her in my presence that he would will her everything he had if she would stay there and take care of him". Another son testifies: "I heard him say at least sixty times that he was going to let mama have everything he had". Plaintiff's husband, who is a son of J.G. Stewart, gave testimony as follows: "I heard my father say, time and time again, if my wife would stay and take care of him and look after him, he would give her everything he had and see that she had it at his death". Indeed, J.G. Stewart made a will devising a bequeathing all of his property to the plaintiff, but this was burned in a fire which destroyed their home--later rebuilt. He died intestate on 4 January 1944, at the age of 83. At that time he owned a farm worth between $8,000 and $10,000, and personal property amounting to $50 and 13 cents in cash.
It is further in evidence that plaintiff performed her part of the contract, and rendered valuable services to the deceased during the latter part of his life--some of an onerous and menial character.
Upon the denial of liability and issues joined, the jury returned the following verdict:
The court instructed the jury that if they came to answer the sixth issue, they would "answer the amount in dollars and cents that you find from the evidence * * * the services rendered by the plaintiff to J.G. Stewart were reasonably worth".
On the fourth and fifth issues, addressed to the three and ten year statutes of limitation, negative answers were directed if the jury found the facts to be true as shown by all the evidence.
Judgment was entered on the verdict for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Long & Long, of Graham, for plaintiff-appellee.
Thomas C. Carter and John H. Vernon, both of Burlington, for defendant-appellant.
The appeal poses the questions whether the case as made survives the demurrer, repels the plea of the statutes fo limitation and withstands the challenge to the correctness of the trial.
First, the demurrer to the evidence: When services are performed by one person for another under an agreement or mutual understanding (fairly to be inferred from their conduct, declarations and attendant circumstances) that compensation therefor is to be provided in the will of the person receiving the benefit of such services, and the latter dies intestate or fails to make such provision, a cause of action accrues in favor of the person rendering the services. Lipe v. Citizens' Bank & Trust Co., 207 N.C. 794, 178 S.E. 665; Grantham v. Grantham, 205 N.C. 363, 171 S.E. 331; Whetstine v. Wilson, 104 N.C. 385, 10 S.E. 471; Miller v. Lash, 85 N.C. 51, 52, 39 Am.Rep. 678.
The method of enforcing such claim may depend upon whether it is within or without the Statute of Frauds. An agreement to devise real estate is within the Statute. Daughtry v. Daughtry, 223 N.C. 528,27 S.E.2d 446; Price v. Askins, 212 N.C. 583, 194 S.E. 284. A contract to bequeath personal property, simpliciter, is not. Neal v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 224 N.C. 103, 29 S.E.2d 206.
In the instant case, the evidence fully justifies the finding of the jury that plaintiff rendered valuable services to her father-in-law under an agreement or mutual understanding that she would be compensated therefor in his will. Indeed, in support of the finding, it may be noted that "where services are rendered by one person for another, which are knowingly and voluntarily accepted, without more, the law presumes that such services are given and 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 N.C. 401, 26 S.E.2d 907. Nevertheless, this is a presumption which may be overcome by proof of an agreement to pay or of facts and circumstances permitting the inference that payment was intended on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial