From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Durham v. Lloyd

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1931
157 S.E. 136 (N.C. 1931)

Opinion

(Filed 11 March, 1931.)

APPEAL by defendant from Harris, J., at May Term, 1930, of ORANGE. Affirmed.

McLendon Hedrick and Long Young for plaintiff.

H.A. Whitfield, A. E. Woltz and Gattis Gattis for defendant.


This is an action to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by plaintiff to defendant's testatrix, as her companion, nurse and housekeeper, during the last five years of her life. In bar of plaintiff's recovery defendant relied chiefly on facts alleged in his answer as an estoppel.

From judgment on the verdict sustaining the contentions of plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.


The court being evenly divided in opinion as to the validity of defendant's assignments of error on his appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court, Brogden, J., not sitting, the judgment is affirmed, in accordance with the practice in this Court. This decision disposes of the appeal, without becoming a precedent. Parsons v. Board of Education, ante, 88, 156 S.E. 244; Gooch v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 196 N.C. 823, 146 S.E. 803, and cases cited.

Affirmed.

BROGDEN, J., not sitting.


Summaries of

Durham v. Lloyd

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1931
157 S.E. 136 (N.C. 1931)
Case details for

Durham v. Lloyd

Case Details

Full title:ANNIE BELL DURHAM v. LUECO LLOYD, EXECUTOR OF CAROLINE LLOYD ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Mar 1, 1931

Citations

157 S.E. 136 (N.C. 1931)
157 S.E. 136

Citing Cases

Smith v. Powell

The Court being evenly divided in opinion, Clarkson, J., not sitting, the judgment of the Superior Court is…

Nebel v. Nebel

The Court being evenly divided in opinion, one of the members, the Chief Justice, not sitting, the judgment…