Careful consideration of the record of the case on *291appeal here under review fails to disclose error for which the judgments entered in Superior Court should be disturbed. Hence in the said judgments there is
No error.
Berrier v. Hilton, 253 N.C. 290 (1960)
Nov. 2, 1960
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
253 N.C. 290
A. L. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY and PEARL M. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY.
(Filed 2 November, 1960.)
Appeal by defendants from Johnston, J., at June 1960 Civil Term, of DAVIDSON.
Civil action instituted by plaintiffs against defendants to recover for certain personal services alleged to have been performed by them for the benefit of M. M. Murphy, non compos mentis, under guardianship, the defendant’s intestate.
The cases were consolidated for trial, and submitted to and answered by the jury upon these two issues: “What amount, if any, is the plaintiff A. L. Berrier entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $3,500.
“What amount, if any, is the plaintiff Pearl Berrier entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $11,000.”
To judgments entered in favor of the respective plaintiffs in accordance therewith the defendant in each case excepted and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.
Walser & Brinkley for plaintiff appellees.
Wilson <& Saintsing for defendant, appellant.