TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jenkins v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc.

Arthur M. Jenkins and Charles J. Henderson v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc.

Jenkins v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc., 89 S.E.2d 471 (N.C. 1955)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 19, 1955
Docket
No. 249
Judges
Parker, Winborne
Citations
89 S.E.2d 471242 N.C. 7581955 N.C. LEXIS 684

Opinion — Parker

PARKER, J.

Both causes of action in the complaint are based upon the same express contract of employment. The answer admits an express contract of employment, the successful performance of the employment, and the expectation of paying a reasonable fee, the amount of which had not been agreed upon.

There is no question of an implied contract. There can be no implied contract where there is an enforceable express contract between the parties as to the same subject matter.

McLean v. Keith, 236 N.C. 59 , 72 S.E. 2d 44 ;

Lawrence v. Hester, 93 N.C. 79 ; 17 C.J.S., Contracts, Sec. 5. Cases relied upon by defendant are concerned with allegations of an express contract and an implied contract, and are not applicable.

“The general rule, which is subject to some qualification under statutes, is that the statement of the same cause of action in different ways or forms, each in a separate count, so as to meet different possible phases of the evidence as it may be developed at the trial, or different possible legal views, is permissible.” 71 C.J.S., Pleadings, p. 215. See: 41 Am. Jur., Pleadings, p. 318.

“The plaintiff can unite two causes of action relating to the same transaction and have alternative relief.”

Herring v. Lumber Co., 159 N.C. 382 , 74 S.E. 1011 .

The law in this jurisdiction does not compel the plaintiffs here to elect at their peril, between their two causes of action stated in different ways. They may assert both, leaving it to the jury or court to say which they are entitled to.

The ruling of the court below is Affirmed.

WiNBORNE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1956: 11959: 11962: 11986: 12017: 119562026peak 1956 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Vetco Concrete Company v. TROY LUMBER COMPANY124 S.E.2d 905 (N.C. 1962)
  2. Keith v. Day343 S.E.2d 562 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
  3. Jenkins v. Trantham94 S.E.2d 311 (N.C. 1956)
  4. Boldridge v. Crowder Construction Co.108 S.E.2d 215 (N.C. 1959)
  5. Bandy v. a Perfect Fit for You, Inc.2017 NCBC 63 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2017)

Most recent

  1. Bandy v. a Perfect Fit for You, Inc.2017 NCBC 63 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2017)
  2. Keith v. Day343 S.E.2d 562 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
  3. Vetco Concrete Company v. TROY LUMBER COMPANY124 S.E.2d 905 (N.C. 1962)
  4. Boldridge v. Crowder Construction Co.108 S.E.2d 215 (N.C. 1959)
  5. Jenkins v. Trantham94 S.E.2d 311 (N.C. 1956)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
McLean v. Keith, 72 S.E.2d 44 (N.C. 1952) 33
Herring v. Cumberland Lumber Co., 74 S.E. 1011 (N.C. 1912) 9
Lawrence v. Hester, 93 N.C. 79 (1885) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list