{
  "id": 8658804,
  "name": "LIPE v. HOUCK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lipe v. Houck",
  "decision_date": "1901-04-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "115",
  "last_page": "119",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 115"
    }
  ],
  "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": "118 N. C., 752",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653947
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/118/0752-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N. C., 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276790
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/50/0217-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N. C., 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694037
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0348-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 448,
    "char_count": 7272,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.35,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.205515777275891e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43075522935893173
    },
    "sha256": "0007c16815cda2535e7ef550c25e69b2b2dfa463f15288ec23f9aeda1ca91c88",
    "simhash": "1:9467f34f2833b3af",
    "word_count": 1276
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LIPE v. HOUCK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CooK, J.\nThe question presented for our decision is, \u201cWhether the evidence established a contract, express or implied, between the plaintiff and defendants.\u2019 intestate ?\u201d\nThe construction, which is a question of law, is not involved. It is the existence of a contract, and its teams, which is a question of fact to be found by a jury. As to this, we think Ms Honor erred in not submitting the issue to the jury.\n\u25a0 In ascertaining whether there was a contract, the relations of the parties must be taken into consideration in connection with their transaction and dealing. The plaintiff was recognized by the intestate as his grandson, and so treated. He received the support and caire from, bis grandfather during Ms minority, and in return rendered valuable and efficient service. There was no legal obligation resting upon him to remain with and submit to the control of his grandfather, who was not hi\u00ae natural guardian, nor was the grandfather undea* such obligations to him a\u00ae are imposed upon the father or natural guardian.\nThese conditions were recognized by them, as is shown by the conduct of the intestate as. testified to by \u2019the plaintiff. It was when he became twenty-one years old, that the intestate called the plaintiff to him and had an understanding* with him as to their future relations. There was no continuation of parental control or filial service after the plaintiff arrived at his majority, hut promptly an agreement and understanding was had between them.\nIt appears that the intestate was moved to this understanding by his own necessities, and for his. own benefit. He realized and appreciated 'the valuable and efficient service\u00ae of the plaintiff \u2014 \u201cJim was worth as much as. any two hands he had\u201d' \u2022 \u2014 .recognizing and speaking of him. as \u201ca band\u201cif it was not for Jim, he could not get anything done,*\u201d \u201cplaintiff was a good band and treated intestate alright. Intestate esteemed him just as. much as his own son.\u201d\nUnder these conditions (intestate growing old) the agreement was made, as appears from testimony of plaintiff: \u201cWhen I became twenty-one years old W. A. Lipe, who was my grandfather, called me and asked me if I was going to stay with them. I said \u2018yes, sir.? He then said \u2018if you will stay and be a good hoy, I will give your mother\u2019s part of the land and property,\u2019 and then he asked me if that was not as good as anybody could do.. I said (yes, sir.\u2019 He then said I wag to get i't after his death and after his wife's death; he said he would give me my patches on which I could raise wheat and cotton.\u201d\nTaking this, in connection with the testimony of intestate\u2019s widow as follows: \u201cMrs. Catharine Lipe, and the widow of the intestate. I helped to' raise plaintiff. My children are dead. Plaintiff has been living with me and his grandfather all his life. We raised him.. He worked for his grandfather. J im had principal management. Lipe told him what to do. He said he would give 'the use of the land for a gift. I know when plaintiff became twenty-one years old. It was about seven years ago.. An agreement was entered into between intestate and plaintiff. Mr. Lipe asked 'him if he was going to stay with us all his life. Plaintiff said 'yes.\u2019 Then Lipe said yon can have your mother\u2019s pant. My sister, Albertine Freeze, was present. Plaintiff was a good hand and treated intestate alright. Intestate esteemed him just as much as his own son. IHs services were worth $200 per 'annum,\u201d and the fact tihalt plaintiff did remain with intestate and work and serve him as before, wh'alt conclusion could he reached other than that he was complying with his part of their understanding % He was of age; capable of contracting; the understanding was based upon a valuable consideration (do id facias), and the intestate accepted the service and received the benefits. From the evidence it appears that the intestate intended to. perform his part of the agreement or understanding, from declarations made to several parties: \"If Jim stays he should have half of everything there, and he wanted a good man to testify to it.;\u201d \u201cJim might get shingles and finish this porch \u2014 it would be his anyhow;\u201d \u201che would like to have Jim in the yard, 'and if he did as he had been doing he expected to give him a good home and part of his property.\u201d Put his death came suddenly and unexpectedly \u2014 killed accidentally. No provision by will or otherwise appears to have been made for the performance of his promise.\nThe facts in this case are unlike those in the case of Williams v. Barnes, 14 N. C., 348, cited by counsel for defendants, where Ruffin, J., says: \u201cI think such claims, without probable evidence of a contract, ought to be frowned on by counts and juries,\u201d and in other similar cases., wherein the child (or grandchild) up'on arrival at full age continues to reside with and serve the parent, without any agreement as to the change of relations theretofore existing \u2014 notably Hudson v. Lutz, 50 N. C., 217; Callahan v. Wood, 118 N. C., 752, and cases there cited.\nIn this case, the grandfather, not being the natural guardian, and only assuming the act in loco parentis, recognized t'he fact that die grandson had become of full age, and that his merit would be appreciated and services wanted by others who would compensate him for the same; Otherwise, why should he ask, \u201cif that was niot as good as anybody could do?\u201d The compensation thus offered Was such share of his estate as his mother would have taken according to' the law of descent and distributions in case of his dying intestate and she surviving him. But the mother was dead, and his promise to make this provision wias not complied with, and under the peculiar circumstances of this case he could not take her share. Wherefore, he brings tbis action to recover upon a breach of the contract, having no other remedy.\nIt would be unjust for the estate to retain the products of his labor and services for seven years unless they were rendered grattuitiously, which does not appear to have been the fact.\nNor is there force in the contention that the action could not be maintained until after the widow\u2019s death. This is not an action for specific performance, buJt upon a breach of contract. \u2014 the action for which accrued upon the death of the intestate. For, thereafter, a compliance with their understanding was impossible.\nHis Honor erred in bolding that the plaintiff could not recover' upon the evidence presented, and tbere will have to be a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CooK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u25a0 B. Lee Wrighl and B. B. Miller, for the plaintiff.",
      "Overman & Gregory, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LIPE v. HOUCK.\n(Filed April 9, 1901.)\n1. CONTRACT \u2014 Breach\u2014In Loco Parentis.\nEvidence in this case held sufficient to establish a contract between a grandfather and grandson to pay for services to be performed by grandson.\n2. ACTION \u2014 Contract.\nThe cause of action in this case arose on death of decedent for breach of contract whereby plaintiff was to have a part of property of decedent, notwithstanding he was not to have the property until the death of the widow of decedent.\nActioN by J. A. Lipe against W. A. Houck and J. S. Lipe, Adm\u2019rs of W. A. Lipe, beard by Judge II. B. Bryan and a jury, at November Term, 1900, of Eowan County Superior Court. Erom a judgment for defendants, the plaintiff appealed.\n\u25a0 B. Lee Wrighl and B. B. Miller, for the plaintiff.\nOverman & Gregory, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0115-01",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 155
}