(Filed 22 May, 1935.)
Appeal by defendant from Qrady, J., at December Term, 1934, of New HaNOveb.
No error.
This is an action to recover of the defendant the sum of $3,000, the proceeds of a policy of insurance on the life of plaintiff’s deceased husband, which the defendant had collected for the plaintiff.
After the action was begun, the defendant paid to the plaintiff the sum of $2,000, retaining the sum of $1,000, which he contended plaintiff had agreed to pay him for his services in collecting from the insurance company the amount due under the policy.
The issues submitted to the jury were answered as follows:
“1. Was there an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant would handle the collection of the $3,000 insurance policy without charge, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: 'Yes.’
*832“2. If not, wbat amount, if any, is tbe defendant entitled to retain out of tbe recovery in question for services performed by bim in bebalf of tbe plaintiff ? Answer: .
“3. In wbat amount, if any, is tbe defendant indebted to tbe iilaintiff on account of moneys collected by bim as ber attorney ? Answer: ‘$1,000, witb interest from 9 June, 1934.’ ”
From judgment tbat plaintiff recover of tbe defendant tbe sum of $1,000, witb interest from 9 June, 1934, and tbe costs of tbe action, tbe defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
R. M. Kermon and Kellum & Humphrey for plaintiff.
Herbert McGlammey and W. F. J ones for defendant.
Pee OueiaM.
"We find no error in tbe trial of tbis action.
Tbe evidence introduced by tbe plaintiff was sufficient to support an affirmative answer to tbe first issue. Tbe answer to tbis issue is determinative of tbe action. Having agreed to handle tbe collection of tbe amount due plaintiff under tbe policy of insurance without charge, tbe defendant is not entitled to recover any sum of tbe plaintiff for bis services in handling tbe collection. Tbe judgment is affirmed.
No error.