Legal Opinion

Lindsey v. . Speight

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 20, 1944PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

After abandoning bis allegations of special contract, the plaintiff recovered in the court below on quantum meruit or for the reasonable value of his services. This is permissible under our practice. Lipe v. Trust Co., 206 N. C., 24, 173 S. E., 316; Hayman v. Davis, 182 N. C., 563, 109 S. E., 554; Bryan v. Cowles, 152 N. C., 767, 68 S. E., 205; Reams v. Wilson, 147 N. C., 304, 60 S. E., 1124. In Grantham v. Grantham, 205 N. C., 363, 171 S. E., 331, the plaintiff declared on a special contract, void under the statute of frauds, and was allowed to recover in assumpsit on quantum meruit. The…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Harrison v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Grantham v. . GranthamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  3. Abbott v. Hunt.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
  4. Raleigh Real Estate & Trust Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  5. Gregory v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Bundy v. . PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  2. Jones v. Palace Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  3. Pascal Ex Rel. Pascal v. Burke Transit Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  4. Coley v. . DalrympleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. S & W Realty & Bonded Commercial Agency, Inc. v. Duckworth & Shelton, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1968

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API