Basketeria Stores, Inc. v. Public Indemnity Co., 204 N.C. 537 (1933)

April 19, 1933 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

204 N.C. 537

BASKETERIA STORES, Incorporated, v. PUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY.

(Filed 19 April, 1933.)

Contracts A d—

Defendant set up a contract under seal, indicating detriment suffered by defendant and benefit accruing to plaintiff, in bar of plaintiff’s right to " recover: Bold,, the contract is not void for lack of consideration, the seal importing consideration, and detriment suffered by one party or benefit accruing to the other being a valuable consideration.

Appeal by plaintiff from Sink, J., at February Term, 1933, of Forsyth.

Affirmed.

The judgment of the court below was as follows: “The above case coming on to be heard and being heard before his Honor, H. IToyle Sink, judge presiding at the February 13th Term, 1933, of the Superior Court of Forsyth County, upon an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff at the December 5th Term, 1932, of the Forsyth County Court, upon an agreed statement of facts, and the court having considered the record, together with the defendant’s assignment of error, and after hearing the argument of counsel, being of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover of the defendant upon the agreed statement of facts, except the sum of $250.00 tendered by the defendant and costs of county court with interest on amount tendered from 9 January, 1931, and that there was error in the judgment of the Forsyth County Court; now, therefore, it is ordered, decreed and adjudged that the defendant’s assignment of error be and the same is hereby sustained; the plaintiff is taxed with the costs of this appeal, and the case is hereby remanded to the Forsyth County Court for judgment to be entered therein in accordance herewith.”

Parrish & Deal for plainliff.

Manly, Hendren & Womble for defendant.

Clarkson, J.

The questions involved on this appeal: (1) Is the assured protected under an automobile insurance policy, which provides that tbe company will not be liable if tbe car is driven or manipulated by a person under tbe age of sixteen years, when tbe car is driven by a person under tbe age of sixteen years, not tbe agent of tbe assured, and without tbe knowledge or consent of tbe assured? (2) Was there valid consideration to support tbe contract pleaded by tbe defendant?

Tbe first question need not be decided. As to tbe second question, we think tbe contract pleaded by defendant valid, and plaintiff cannot recover in this action. Tbe agreement was under seal, which imports consideration. Thomason v. Bescher, 176 N. C., 622, 625. Tbe agreement recites “in consideration of tbe mutual promises herein contained and other valuable consideration.”

Tbe contract indicated that there was detriment to tbe defendant and benefit to tbe plaintiff, either of which is recognized as valuable consideration. “Any benefit to tbe promisor or any loss or detriment to tbe »promisee is a sufficient consideration to support a contract.” Fawcett v. Fawcett, 191 N. C., 679, 681; Warren v. Bottling Co., ante, 288, 291.

Tbe cases cited by plaintiff are not applicable under tbe facts in this case. We do not think tbe solemn agreement, under seal, with recitals, is a “scrap of paper,” but a valid and binding agreement. Tbe judgment of tbe court below is

Affirmed.