Case Name: ROSA MORGAN HENDERSON HOLSHOUSER v. FANNIE J. MORGAN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of LOVE HILL, Deceased
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1964-11-25
Citations: 263 N.C. 98
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROSA MORGAN HENDERSON HOLSHOUSER v. FANNIE J. MORGAN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of LOVE HILL, Deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
ROSA MORGAN HENDERSON HOLSHOUSER v. FANNIE J. MORGAN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of LOVE HILL, Deceased.
(Filed 25 November, 1964.)
Appeal by defendant from Crissman, J.,, May 18, 1964, Session of R.QWAN. ... . V5. ;;
Civil action to recover compensation for services rendered Love Hill, who died testate on April 24, 1962, “at the age of approximately 80 years.”
The only evidence was that offered by plaintiff.
The issues submitted and the jury’s. answers were as follows: “1. Did the plaintiff, Rosa Morgan Henderson Holshouser, during the last three years of the life of Love Hill, under an implied contract, perform .services for the said Love Hill, which he knowingly accepted and did not pay or settle for, and for which the plaintiff expected pay, as alleged in the Complaint? ANSWER: YES. 2. If so, what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover for such services? ANSWER: $2600.00.”
Judgment for plaintiff in accordance with the verdict was entered. Defendant excepted and appealed.
Woodson, Hudson ■& Busby for plaintiff appellee.
Graham M. Carlton for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
PER CüRiam.
The complaint, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient to require that the' court submit the issues for jury determination. Hence, defendant's demurrer to complaint "for failure . to allege a eause of action," -and defendant's motion for judgment of nonsuit, were properly overruled.
Defendant's remaining assignments of error, éxcept formal assignments, relate to (1) rulings on evidence, (2) portions of the charge, as given and (3) the court's failure to' give additional instructions. Each of these assignments has received full consideration. In our view, none discloses prejudicial error or merits discussion in detail.
No error.