21 N.C. App. 487 | N.C. Ct. App. | 1974
Plaintiffs contend by numerous exceptions that the trial court committed error in rulings on the admissibility of evidence concerning conversations between the deceased and the plaintiffs with respect to what the deceased had promised them.
Plaintiffs contend the trial court committed error in the exclusion of opinion testimony as to the reasonable value of services rendered by plaintiffs to the deceased.
Both plaintiffs in their pleadings based their complaint upon an express contract with the deceased, and now, in this Court, seek to argue an implied contract. There is no evidence in the record tending to show that the deceased accepted the services under the assumption that-the plaintiffs expected to be paid for these services.
“The burden always rests upon the plaintiff, even when there is no presumption that the services were gratuitous, to show circumstances from which it might be inferred that services were rendered and received with the mutual understanding that they were to be paid for, or, as it is sometimes put, ‘under circumstances calculated to put a reasonable person on notice that the services are not gratuitous’.” Johnson v. Sanders, 260 N.C. 291, 132 S.E. 2d 582.
This assignment of error is overruled.
Plaintiffs also contend that the trial court committed error in allowing defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. “On a motion by a defendant for a directed verdict in a jury case, the court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and may grant the motion only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff.” Kelly v. Harvester Company, 278 N.C. 153, 179 S.E. 2d 396.
In our opinion, the trial court correctly allowed defendant’s motion. This assignment of error is overruled.