{
  "id": 8623452,
  "name": "NETA EDWARDS v. JOEL T. MATTHEWS, Executor of E. D. Bass, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Edwards v. Matthews",
  "decision_date": "1928-09-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 39"
    }
  ],
  "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": "10 S. E., 566",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651464
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 S. E., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N. C., 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2600,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0767235825779126e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5611782771891334
    },
    "sha256": "94dec51e370f34753572f27b0e5042bf14253768966277a212d7ccfbdc90a36a",
    "simhash": "1:b7251af9ce4b12c9",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NETA EDWARDS v. JOEL T. MATTHEWS, Executor of E. D. Bass, Deceased."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per .Curiam.\nDefendant\u2019s exception to the submission of the fourth issue, to wit: \u201cIs the defendant indebted to the plaintiff upon the quantum meruit for services rendered ?\u201d cannot be sustained.\nIn her complaint plaintiff alleged an express contract by which defendant\u2019s testator promised and agreed to compensate her liberally for the services rendered by her. She relied upon this contract as the foundation of her cause of action. However, her failure to prove the express contract did not preclude her recovery for the services which the evidence shows that she rendered to defendant\u2019s testator upon a quantum meruit. There was no relationship between plaintiff and defendant\u2019s testator from which a presumption arises that' the services were gratuitous. Lowrie v. Oxendine, 153 N. C., 268, 69 S. E., 131. There was no error in the submission of the fburth issue. Stokes v. Taylor, 104 N. C., 394, 10 S. E., 566, 13 C. J., 750, sec. 910.\nRecovery was limited, under instructions of the court, to services rendered during three years immediately preceding the death of defendant\u2019s testator. Assignments' of error based upon exceptions to the admission of evidence cannot be sustained. The evidence was properly submitted' to the jury and is sufficient to sustain the verdict. There are no assignments of error based upon exceptions to the charge. The judgment is affirmed. There is\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per .Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Austin & Davenport for plaintiff.",
      "L. T. Vaughn, W. M. Person and I. T. Valentine for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NETA EDWARDS v. JOEL T. MATTHEWS, Executor of E. D. Bass, Deceased.\n(Filed 12 September, 1928.)\nExecutors and Administrators \u2014 Allowance and Payment of Claims\u2014 Claims Against Decedent for Services Rendered \u2014 Quasi-Contracts\u2014 Quantum Meruit.\nWhere the plaintiff declares upon an express contract with defendant\u2019s intestate she is not precluded from recovery upon quantum meruit for services rendered three years before intestate\u2019s death when the evidence supports the claim and there is no relationship between the decedent and the plaintiff to raise the presumption that the services were gratuitously rendered.\nAppeal by defendant from Daniels, J., at January Term, 1928, of Nash.\nNo error.\nCivil action to recover for services rendered by plaintiff to defendant\u2019s testator.\nBy its answer to the first issue the jury found that defendant\u2019s testator did not enter into the express contract with plaintiff, as alleged in her complaint.\nFrom judgment on the verdict that defendant is indebted to plaintiff upon a quantum meruit for such services, in the sum of $2,100, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nAustin & Davenport for plaintiff.\nL. T. Vaughn, W. M. Person and I. T. Valentine for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 119,
  "last_page_order": 120
}