{ "id": 8651554, "name": "J. H. ROBERTS v. THE P. A. DEMING WOODWORKING COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Roberts v. P. A. Deming Woodworking Co.", "decision_date": "1892-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "432", "last_page": "434", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "111 N.C. 432" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "108 N. C., 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651382 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0601-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N. C., 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651464 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 N. C., 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650543 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/109/0401-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 254, "char_count": 4045, "ocr_confidence": 0.552, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.55145445182213e-07, "percentile": 0.674704200901288 }, "sha256": "a7f16a890c2e405f3d4f0eabbe943c7209eddc7a4b27cbae420c2f14de198691", "simhash": "1:7d38f90f404ff271", "word_count": 695 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:01:29.703665+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. H. ROBERTS v. THE P. A. DEMING WOODWORKING COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clabk, J.:\nThe Court ruled that the plaintiff could not \u2019recover in any aspect of the evidence, because the contract of the defendant company was not \u201cin writing and under the' seal of the corporation, or signed by some officer of the company duly authorized,\u201d as required by The Code, \u00a7 683. That section and its purport was construed in Curtis v. Piedmont Company, 109 N. C., 401. It is there held that it applies to exec-utory contracts and protects corp nations from enforcement of such unless evidenced in the manner prescribed by the statute. But the Court adds that it does not apply to cases where the corporation has received and availed itself of property sold and actually delivered to it. In such cases, tlte company can be compelled to pay the fair value of such property. In the present case the claim is for- work and labor done at a specified rate. The contract not being in writing and signed (or sealed), as required by the statute, the plaintiff cannot force the defendant to continue the contract as to the unexe-cuted part, but the plaintiff is entitled to recover a fair value for the labor already performed, and which the company has accepted, and of which it has enjoyed the benefits.\nThe defendant contends, however, that this action is brought upon the express contract, and that no recovery can be had upon a quantum\\ meruit, and that if this is not so, still there was no evidence to justify a verdict for the value of the services. The complaint is sufficient to warrant a recovery, either upon express contract or for the value of the work and labor done. Stokes v. Taylor, 104 N. C., 394, and cases there cited; Fulps v. Mock, 108 N. C., 601. No amendment was necessary, but if desirable, the Court, in accordance with the present system of procedure, which, without undue neglect of form favors a trial upon the merits, could and should have allowed an amendment of the complaint after a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, if successful. The Code, \u00a7 273. As to the second objection raised, the contract price agreed upon between the authorized agent of the company and the plaintiff, while not conclusive (since the express contract was perforce\u2019abandoned), was certainly some evidence sufficient to go to the jurylas to the value of the services.\nThe nonsuit must be set aside, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.\nPer Curiam. Error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clabk, J.:" } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. IT. B. Carter, for plaintiff.", "Mr. T. H. Cobb, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. H. ROBERTS v. THE P. A. DEMING WOODWORKING COMPANY.\nCorporation \u2014 Contract in Writing \u2014 Code\u2014Quantum, Meruit\u2014 Pleading \u2014 Amendment\u2014Measure of Damages \u2014 Evidence.\n1. The plaintiff sued a corporation for work and labor done; the contract was not \u201c in writing under seal of the corporation or signed by some officer of the company duly authorized,\u201d as required by section 683 of The Code: Held, the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the work already done, but could not force the defendant to continue the contract as to the unexecuted part.\n2. The complaint being broad enough to set out an action on the quantum meruit, the plaintiff will not be confined to the express contract, and if not broad enough, the Court might have allowed amendment after verdict making it so.\n3. The contract price, while not conclusive, is some evidence by which the value of plaintiff\u2019s services may be measured.\n. This was a civil action, tried at the August Term, 1892, of Buncombe Superior Court, before Bynum, J., for the value of work and labor done for the defendant corporation.\nThe defendant denied the debt, and resisted payment upon the further ground that the contract was not in writing under seal of the corporation, nor signed by any authorized officer thereof, and therefore void under section 683 of The Code. When the plaintiff rested his case, the Court intimated he could not recover on his own showing, the contract being above $100, was not according to the formalities prescribed by The Code, \u00a7 683. Whereupon the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit and appealed.\nMr. IT. B. Carter, for plaintiff.\nMr. T. H. Cobb, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0432-01", "first_page_order": 464, "last_page_order": 466 }