TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Prince v. McRae

D. M. Prince v. Peter McRae, Adm'r.

Prince v. McRae, 84 N.C. 674 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1881
Judges
Sjute
Citations
84 N.C. 674
Cited by 21
Headnotes
Contract — Implied Promise. «Where the plaintiff physician made no charge upon his books for professional services rendered the defendant who resisted an action to recover their value upon the ground they were intended to be and were gratni- ■ tons, and the jury found that defendant employed the plaintiff whose services were rendered without any express agreement to pay a definite sum; Held, that the law implies a promise on the part of the defendant to pay what they were reasonably worth.
Summary
¡Civil Action commenced before a justice of the peace and tried on appeal at Fall Term, 1880, of RICHMOND Superior .Court, before Avery, J. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, appeal by defendant.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Sjute

Sjute, C. J.

The notion is to recover for professional services rendered by the plaintiff, a physician, to the defendant’s intestate, which is resisted on the ground that they were intended to be and were gratuitous.

The plaintiff admitted that he had made no entry of a charge upon his books^ and the defendant testified that at the administration sale the plaintiff bought a horse and proposed to pay for him from his account, remarking that he had not intended to charge the intestate, but that seeing others present their accounts, he concluded to present his own-.

The defendant’s counsel requested His Honor to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff at the time the services were rendered did not intend to make a charge for them, he could not recover. This was refused and the jury were directed that if from the testimony they should find that the intestate employed the plaintiff, and the services were rendered without any express agreement to pay a definite sum, the law would imply a promise to pay what they were reasonably worth.

The exceptions to the instruction refused and to the instruction given are for review on the appeal.

The proposed instruction proceeds from a misconception of the nature and essential requisites of a contract and was rightfully refused. A contract, express or implied, executed or executory, results from the concurrence of minds of two or more persons, and its legal consequences are not dependent upon the impressions or understandings of one alone of the parties to it. It is not what either thinks but what both agree.

Brunhild v. Freeman, 77 N. C., 128 ; P endleton v. Jones, 82 N. C., 249 .

Whether the plaintiff’s services shall be deemed a gratuity *676 or constitute a claim for compensation, must be determined by the common understanding of both parties. If they were intended to be and were accepted as a gift or act of benevolence, they cannot at the election of the plaintiff create a legal obligation, to pay. But their character is not controlled by the inexpressed and revocable intentions of the plaintiff, although his purposes subsequently asserted may aid in ascertaining it The matter was properly left to the jury and their verdict finds that the intestate did employ the plaintiff and the services were rendered and they have also fixed their value.

There is no error in the charge, but there is error in the judgment so far as it allows interest from May 19th, 1880. The entire damages are assessed in the verdict at fall term, 1880, at $200, and interest is only allowable thereafter. Thus corrected the judgment must be affirmed and it is so ordered.

No error. Modified and affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
1886–1887: 11896–1897: 11904–1905: 11906–1907: 11912–1913: 21916–1917: 11922–1923: 11928–1929: 11932–1933: 11934–1935: 11958–1959: 11962–1963: 21968–1969: 11984–1985: 11986–1987: 11988–1989: 12006–2007: 12014–2015: 12018–2019: 118862026peak 1912 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc. v. Sales346 S.E.2d 212 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
  2. Root v. Allstate Insurance Company158 S.E.2d 829 (N.C. 1968)
  3. Howell v. Smith128 S.E.2d 144 (N.C. 1962)
  4. Roberta Manufacturing Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.76 S.E. 865 (N.C. 1912)
  5. N. & W. Overall Co. v. Holmes119 S.E. 817 (N.C. 1923)
  6. Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co.49 S.E. 946 (N.C. 1905)

Most recent

  1. Certainteed Gypsum Nc, Inc. v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC2018 NCBC 90 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2018)
  2. Jacobson v. Walsh2014 NCBC 2 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2014)
  3. Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group, L.L.C.2006 NCBC 12 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2006)
  4. Williams v. Jones366 S.E.2d 433 (N.C. 1988)
  5. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc. v. Sales346 S.E.2d 212 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
  6. Square D Co. v. C. J. Kern Contractors, Inc.334 S.E.2d 63 (N.C. 1985)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Brunhild v. Freeman, 77 N.C. 128 (1877) 24
Pendleton v. Jones, 82 N.C. 249 (1880) 16

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