majority"> *40 Per .Curiam.

Defendant’s exception to the submission of the fourth issue, to wit: “Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff upon the quantum meruit for services rendered ?” cannot be sustained.

In her complaint plaintiff alleged an express contract by which defendant’s testator promised and agreed to compensate her liberally for the services rendered by her. She relied upon this contract as the foundation of her cause of action. However, her failure to prove the express contract did not preclude her recovery for the services which the evidence shows that she rendered to defendant’s testator upon a quantum meruit. There was no relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s testator from which a presumption arises that' the services were gratuitous. Lowrie v. Oxendine, 153 N. C., 268, 69 S. E., 131. There was no error in the submission of the fburth issue. Stokes v. Taylor, 104 N. C., 394, 10 S. E., 566, 13 C. J., 750, sec. 910.

Recovery was limited, under instructions of the court, to services rendered during three years immediately preceding the death of defendant’s testator. Assignments' of error based upon exceptions to the admission of evidence cannot be sustained. The evidence was properly submitted' to the jury and is sufficient to sustain the verdict. There are no assignments of error based upon exceptions to the charge. The judgment is affirmed. There is

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress