Legal Opinion

Bevill v. Cox

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 15, 1890PublishedCited by 1 opinion

This action was brought to recover compensation for ser- ■ vices by plaintiff to the testatrix of the defendant, and tried, upon an appeal from a Justice’s Court, at August Term, 1890, of the Superior Court of Guilford County, before MacRae, J., upon the following issue, to-wit: “Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff, as alleged ? If so, how much?” The plaintiff, in support of the issue on her part, offered testimony tending to prove that the testatrix sent for her;…

Read the full summary

This action was brought to recover compensation for ser- ■ vices by plaintiff to the testatrix of the defendant, and tried, upon an appeal from a Justice’s Court, at August Term, 1890, of the Superior Court of Guilford County, before MacRae, J., upon the following issue, to-wit: “Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff, as alleged ? If so, how much?” The plaintiff, in support of the issue on her part, offered testimony tending to prove that the testatrix sent for her; that she went to. her home and remained there, doing the cooking, washing and house-work for testatrix, and some out-door…

1Opinion of the Court

Clark, J.:

If the testatrix, while a feme sole, had contracted with plaintiff for services for a definite period, the marriage of the testatrix before the expiration of such time would not impair the obligation of the antenuptial contract, and plaintiff could have recovered in an action before a magistrate compensation (if not more than $200) for the whole period, although part of the services were rendered after marriage. The Code, § 1823; Hodges v. Hill, 105 N. C., 130. But when the contract is for no specified time, the obligation to pay arises as the services are rendered. Marriage having…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Farthing v. . ShieldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  2. Dougherty v. . SprinkleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
  3. Hodges v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wilson Cotton Mills v. Randleman Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895

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

Powered by the Exa API