{
  "id": 8622423,
  "name": "RICHARD I. LEONARD v. FLETCHER BENFIELD, Trading and Doing Business as RANDOLPH ELECTRIC MOTOR COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Leonard v. Benfield",
  "decision_date": "1955-11-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "169",
  "last_page": "171",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 169"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 S.E. 2d 562",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N.C. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629147
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0241-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 S.E. 2d 127",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 N.C. 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8603957
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/216/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 S.E. 2d 379",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 N.C. 695",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616238
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/217/0695-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 4108,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20721999622371806
    },
    "sha256": "53c57bb5c2f35b6a386a3db1327c28c832d9530f2858c79ed60e31db832aa9bc",
    "simhash": "1:226338633647b8cc",
    "word_count": 680
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Higgins, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "RICHARD I. LEONARD v. FLETCHER BENFIELD, Trading and Doing Business as RANDOLPH ELECTRIC MOTOR COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, J.\nWe think the plaintiff has offered evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury and that there was error in allowing the motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nWhile the plaintiff testified he was employed as manager of defendant\u2019s business in Asheboro at a salary of $100 per week, he alleged and offered evidence tending to show that the work-week contemplated 44 hours and that it was agreed that for overtime plainitff should have additional compensation. The amount of such additional compensation, if any, in the absence of specific agreement, would be the reasonable worth of the services rendered. Turner v. Furniture Co., 217 N.C. 695, 9 S.E. 2d 379; Ray v. Robinson, 216 N.C. 430, 5 S.E. 2d 127; Sawyer v. Cox, 215 N.C. 241, 1 S.E. 2d 562.\nConsequent upon the allowance of defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit at close of plaintiff\u2019s testimony the defendant offered no evidence. On another hearing other facts may appear, but on this record plaintiff was entitled to have his case submitted to the jury.\nReversed.\nHiggins, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nThe foregoing opinion was prepared by Devin, Emergency Justice, while he was serving in place of Higgins, J., who was absent on account of his physical condition. It is now adopted by the Court and ordered filed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "B. E. Bencini, Jr., and Hal H. Walker for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RICHARD I. LEONARD v. FLETCHER BENFIELD, Trading and Doing Business as RANDOLPH ELECTRIC MOTOR COMPANY.\n(Filed 23 November, 1955.)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 9\u2014\nEvidence that plaintiff was employed as manager for defendant\u2019s business in a certain town at a stipulated salary per week, that the work-week contemplated was 44 hours, and that it was agreed that plaintiff should have additional compensation for overtime, together with evidence that plaintiff had worked overtime, is held sufficient to overrule nonsuit in plaintiff\u2019s action to recover compensation for such overtime.\n3. Same\u2014\nThe amount of additional compensation for overtime work, if any, in the absence of specific agreement, is the reasonable worth of the services rendered.\nHiggins, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Armstrong, J., March Term, 1955, of Randolph.\nThis was an action to recover for services rendered pursuant to contract.\nPlaintiff alleged that defendant entered into contract to employ him in the electric motor repair business at a salary of $100 per week of 44 hours and that the contract provided for additional compensation to plaintiff for work in excess of 44 hours per week.\nPlaintiff testified, in substance, that such was the agreement, and that pursuant thereto he performed the work for which he was employed for a period of 13 months and that during that period he worked overtime a total of 694 hours; that he was paid his regular salary but defendant has refused to pay him anything for the overtime claimed.\nPlaintiff further testified that he had previously worked for defendant in same business in Lexington, North Carolina, on a weekly basis of 44 hours; that defendant employed him as manager in the place being opened by defendant in Asheboro at $100 per week based on the same number of hours per week; that it was agreed between them if any overtime had to be put in defendant would compensate him for it, and further that defendant would give him an interest in the business if plaintiff worked overtime hours necessary to the successful operation of the business; that plaintiff worked faithfully, and the business was profitable ; that defendant knew plaintiff was working overtime and accepted the benefit of his extra-hour labor. Plaintiff offered in evidence the time book he kept showing his hours of work. He claimed he was entitled to compensation for the 694 hours overtime, reasonably, at same rate per hour as agreed for regular time.\nThe defendant offered no evidence.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, motion for judgment of nonsuit was allowed. From judgment dismissing his action, plaintiff appealed.\nOttway Burton for plaintiff, appellant.\nB. E. Bencini, Jr., and Hal H. Walker for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0169-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 211
}