{
  "id": 8627841,
  "name": "J. D. HARRIS v. L. C. BUIE and GALEN HARRIS, by His Next Friend, J. D. HARRIS, v. L. C. BUIE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harris v. Buie",
  "decision_date": "1932-04-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "634",
  "last_page": "636",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 634"
    }
  ],
  "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": "199 N. C., 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599663
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655549
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625935
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 783",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614567
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0783-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651464
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0394-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 356,
    "char_count": 5870,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.168668855370785e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4293954975753413
    },
    "sha256": "459eb17a44b09b52bc33e7f5237f66a5459cc0bd71c276628f40e9b6dd7d2793",
    "simhash": "1:8a417c2fc825e847",
    "word_count": 1081
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. D. HARRIS v. L. C. BUIE and GALEN HARRIS, by His Next Friend, J. D. HARRIS, v. L. C. BUIE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClabKSOn, J.\n(First action.) At tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s, J. D. Harris, evidence, and at tbe close of all tbe evidence, defendant made motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit. O. S., 561. Tbe court below overruled these motions, and in tbis we can see no error.\nTbe plaintiff J. D. Harris testified, in part: \u201cMr. Buie paid me $40.00 per month but that was not tbe contract exactly. That was tbe contract until we reached tbe grade A standard. . . . Tbe trade about my getting half of tbe profits was to start when I got tbe dairy up to A grade standard. I demanded my half of tbe profits tbe first month after it went up to grade A, but be said wait until we got a few more cows.\u201d\nWe do not think there is such a material variance between tbe allegations and proof that defendant can complain of. Stokes v. Taylor, 104 N. C., 394; Dorsey v. Corbett, 190 N. C., 783; Brown v. Williams, 196 N. C., 247.\nWhen there is an express contract for a stipulated amount and mode of compensation for services, tbe plaintiff cannot abandon tbe contract and resort to an action for a quantum meruit on an implied assumpsit. Dorsey\u2019s case, supra.\n(Second action.) The plaintiff, Galen Harris, testified, in part: \u201cOn 12 May I began driving Mr. Buie\u2019s milk truck. He fired Ben McBryde and told father and I that be wanted me to drive the truck for bim and that he would pay me $50.00 per month, the same he had been paying McBryde. ... I worked for him six months and he did not pay me anything. I am claiming $50.00 for the six months. Mr. Buie never complained to me about my work. He said I had done all right. I was not of age to work for him and ask for my pay. I left that to my father as he was handling the business transaction.\u201d\nJ. D. Harris testified, in part: \u201cI have had the court appoint me as next friend of my son to bring this suit. . . . Mr. Buie got dissatisfied with one of his drivers and he asked me if I thought I could finish up and get ready for grade A- and let him put Galen on a truck. I told him I thought I could and so we called Galen over and he asked Galen if he would be willing to drive the truck at $50.00 per month, the same he had been paying McBryde. My son went to work for him the next morning. He worked six months. I never got any money from him for Galen.\u201d\nIn this action Galen Harris, by his next friend, J. D. Harris, against L. C. Buie, at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the defendant, Buie, did not move for judgment as in case of nonsuit in the court below, nor at the close of all the evidence, as he had a right to do under C. S., 567. By the failure of defendant to follow strictly C. S., 567, supra, the question of the insufficiency of evidence is waived. Nowell v. Basnight, 185 N. C., 142; Penland v. Hospital, 199 N. C., 314; Batson v. Laundry Co., ante, 560. For the reasons given, in the judgment of the court below we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClabKSOn, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred W. Bynum for plaintiffs.",
      "J. O. Sedberry for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. D. HARRIS v. L. C. BUIE and GALEN HARRIS, by His Next Friend, J. D. HARRIS, v. L. C. BUIE.\n(Filed 20 April, 1932.)\n1. Contracts F c \u2014 Under the allegations in this action for breach of con-tract the admission of evidence of reasonable worth of services was not error.\n' Where an employee of a dairy sues his employer upon the contract of employment and alleges that he was to be paid a fixed sum per month plus a division of the profits when the dairy was brought up to \u201cA\u201d grade, the admission of evidence as to the value of the services rendered will not be held for error, there not being such a variance between allegation and proof as to constitute prejudicial error to the defendant.\n2. Trial D a \u2014 Where defendant does not move for judgment as of non-suit he waives question of sufficiency of the evidence.\nWhere the defendant in a civil action does not comply with the provisions of C. S., 567, in making a motion for judgment as of nonsuit he waives the question of the sufficiency of the evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Finley, J., and a jury, at September Term, 1931, of Rici-imoND.\nAs to both appeals no error.\n(1) This is an action brought by plaintiff, J. D. Harris, to recover of defendant, for breach of contract, the sum of $245 for services in connection with the defendant\u2019s \u201cSunny Slope Dairy,\u201d near the town of Red Springs, N. C.\nThe defendant in his answer denied any breach of contract or that he owed plaintiff anything, and says: \u201cThat the defendant paid the plaintiff much more than his services were really worth and paid him every cent that he obligated to pay him, and, therefore, the defendant does not owe the plaintiff any sum whatever.\u201d\nTbe issues submitted to tbe jury and tbeir answers thereto were as follows :\n\u201c1. Did tbe plaintiff, J. D. Harris, enter a contract witb tbe defendant, L. C. Buie, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: Yes.\n2. If so, did tbe defendant break said contract? Answer: Yes..\n3. What damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to receive? Answer : $162.50.\u201d\nJudgment was-rendered on tbe verdict for plaintiff and against tbe defendant.\n(2) Tbis is an action brought by plaintiff, Galen Harris, by bis next friend, J. D. Harris, against defendant for breach of contract, to recover of defendant tbe sum of $300 for six months\u2019 services at $50.00 a month, in connection witb defendant\u2019s dairy above referred to.\nDefendant denied that be ever employed Galen Harris \u201cto drive one of tbe defendant\u2019s milk trucks at a salary of $50.00 per month.\u201d\nTbe issue submitted to tbe jury and tbeir answer thereto were as follows: \u201cWbat amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff, Galen Harris, entitled to receive of tbe defendant ? Answer: $200.\u201d\nJudgment was rendered on tbe verdict for plaintiff and against defendant. Tbe defendant excepted and assigned errors as t\u00f3 tbe signing of both judgments, made other exceptions and assignments of error and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nFred W. Bynum for plaintiffs.\nJ. O. Sedberry for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0634-01",
  "first_page_order": 700,
  "last_page_order": 702
}