Lowrie v. . Oxendine

"WaleeR, J., after stating tbe case. There are many exceptions appearing in tbe record, but it is necessary to consider only one or two questions in order to dispose of tbe real matters in controversy. Tbe court stated to tbe jury in its charge tbe correct rule applicable to cases of this kind, and' there was evidence to support tbe instruction. Tbe plaintiff lived with bis grandfather for several years, and during that time be managed bis business and took care of him during bis illness. There was evidence tending to show that bis grandfather repeatedly stated in tbe presence of others that be intended to pay him for bis services, and that tbe plaintiff expected to receive compensation for them. It was for tbe jury to decide, upon tbe evidence, whether it was mutually understood by and agreed between tbe parties that tbe plaintiff should be remunerated for bis services. Tbe presumption arising from tbe relation of tbe parties that services were performed by one of them for tbe other gratuitously, is not conclusive, but may be rebutted by evidence which tends to show that at tbe time tbe labor was performed or tbe services rendered, tbe parties contemplated and intended that compensation should be made for tbe same, and sufficient, therefore, to show an implied agreement to that effect. An express agreement may, of course, be shown. Dodson v. McAdams, 96 N. C., 156; Young v. Herman, 97 N. C., 283; Stallings v. Ellis, 136 N. C., 69; Dunn v. Currie, 141 N. C., 123; Freeman v. Brown, 151 N. C., 113. In this ease there was proof of an express contract to pay. Tbe other objections relating to tbe question now under consideration are untenable. We think there was evidence that tbe plaintiff bad been emancipated by bis father and permitted to work for himself and to receive tbe earnings of bis labor. In Ingram v. R. R., 152 N. C., 762, we held that “if a minor son contracts on bis own account for bis services with tbe knowledge of bis father, who makes no objection thereto, there is an implied emancipation and an assent that the son shall be entitled to tbe earnings in bis own right,” citing Burdsall v. Wagoner, 4 Col., 261; Armstrong v. *270 McDonald, 10 Barb., 300; Jenny v. Alden, 12 Mass., 375; Campbell v. Campbell, 11 N. J. Eq., 268; Taylor v. Webb, 36 N. Y., Supp., 592. Tbe general features of tbis ease are libe those of Freeman v. Brown, supra, and sufficiently so to bring it witbin tbe application of tbe principles therein stated. There is no error to be found in tbe rulings of tbe court, and tbe judgment should be affirmed. No error.