Anderson v. . Thornburg

Per Curiam. There is no evidence of an express contract. Consequently the right to recover rests upon quantum meruit. The testimony is not set forth in full. Hence the plaintiff must rely upon certain generalizations of evidence as contained in the record. These may be summarized as follows: (a) “There was evidence that the plaintiff had married and moved away from her parents and lived with her husband in different places and at different times, and when she and her husband separated she came back to her father.” (b) “That on 1 December, 1927, she came back to her father’s home and lived there continuously until his death, and that during the time she was there she did all kinds of housework, chopped wood, washed, and did everything a housewife does, and waited on them until the time of his death.” (c) “There was evidence that the entire family consisted of J. A. Hicks and his wife, Christine Hicks, the plaintiff and her boy.” Manifestly the foregoing evidence demonstrates that an adult daughter, after separation from her husband, voluntarily returned to the home, thus reestablishing the one family relationship. She worked faithfully in the home, but apparently as a member of the family. There is no *783 evidence tbat sbe expected compensation or that her father intended to pay for services so rendered. Therefore, the judgment of nonsuit is in full accord with the principles heretofore declared. Winkler v. Killian, 141 N. C., 575, 54 S. E., 540; and Staley v. Lowe, 197 N. C., 243, 148 S. E., 240. Affirmed.