Turner v. Marsh Furniture Co

• Decision Date: 08 June 1940
• Docket Number: No. 678.,678.
• Citation: Turner v. Marsh Furniture Co, 9 S.E.2d 379, 217 N.C. 605 (N.C. 1940)
• Parties: TURNER. v. MARSH FURNITURE CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

9 S.E.2d 379

217 N.C. 605

TURNER.

v.MARSH FURNITURE CO.

No. 678.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 1940.

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; J. H. Clement, Judge.

Action by M. H. Turner against the Marsh Furniture Company for services rendered defendant pursuant to its agreement to pay therefor. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.

New trial.

Plaintiff sued to recover for services rendered defendant pursuant to its agreement to pay therefor.

Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that while he was doing some carpenter work in defendant's furniture factory, he learned that the method then in use in the factory of sliding furniture down a chute from the second to the first floor was unsatisfactory; that plaintiff originated the idea and devised plans for doing this by means of an automatic conveyer and mechanical tilting device, eliminating the labor of two men; that he communicated his plan to defendant's president who told him to go home and make drawings and bring them back and defendant would have the necessary construction put in, and "if it works satisfactorily, I will pay you for it, and pay you well;" that plaintiff made the drawings at home at night and gave them to defendant and explained them to him, and also made a model; that the necessary construction was put in and the means for operating the device installed, and these have been in successful use by the defendant since.

Defendant offered evidence tending to show that the conveyer and tilting device installed by the defendant were built by an independent machine company, and none of the ideas of the plaintiff were incorporated or used.

Upon issue submitted, the jury returned verdict for plaintiff, and from judgment in accord with the verdict, defendant appealed.

Walser & Wright, of High Point, for plaintiff-appellee.

Roy L. Deal, of Winston-Salem, and Roberson, Haworth & Reese, of High Point, for defendant-appellant.

DEVIN, Justice.

The defendant's motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly over-ruled. The plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury.

Defendant's principal assignment of error relates to the judge's charge on the measure of damages. Exception was duly noted to the instruction given by the court that if the jury found the defendant made the agreement to pay the plaintiff for the device as alleged, and that it worked satisfactorily, "then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover such sum of money as would represent the value of that invention to the defendant."

We are constrained to hold this instruction for error. The measure of damages was not the benefit of the device to the defendant, but the reasonable value of plaintiff's services. This is not an action to recover for the sale of a patent right or an invention but for services rendered pursuant to request and agreement to pay therefor. Sawyer v. Cox, 215 N.C. 241, 1 S.E.2d 562; Ray v. Robinson, 216 N.C. 430, 5 S.E.2d 127.

The general rule is that when there is no agreement as to the amount of...