Appleby v. Noble
| Decision Date | 02 June 1924 |
| Citation | 124 A. 717,101 Conn. 54 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | APPLEBY v. NOBLE ET AL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.
Action by Robert H. Appleby against Robert Noble and others to recover the agreed price for services rendered the defendants' testate. Verdict and judgment for the defendants, and appeal by the plaintiff. No error.
The plaintiff offered evidence to prove the following facts:
On or about the 1st day of October, 1918, the plaintiff and Augusta M. Clark entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to continue in her employ and perform duties and render services to her as manager and caretaker of her homestead, grounds, and live stock, in the town of Old Lyme, from October 1, 1918, to and until the death of Augusta M. Clark, and in consideration thereof she promised and agreed to compensate the plaintiff at the rate of $100 per month, $40 to be paid in cash monthly, and the balance $60 per month to be paid to the plaintiff by a provision to that effect in her will.
In pursuance of this agreement, the plaintiff rendered services to Augusta M. Clark as agreed from the 1st day of October 1918, to and until the first day of June, 1922, and was paid $40 per month in cash.
Augusta M. Clark died on the 1st day of June, 1922, leaving a last will wherein the defendants were appointed executors. Augusta M. Clark failed to make provision in her will for the payment to the plaintiff of the balance due him under the agreement of $60 per month for 44 months, in all $2,640. The plaintiff duly presented this claim to the executors, and they disallowed it.
On the 10th day of March, 1919, Augusta M. Clark executed her will which contained the following provision:
" To Robert H. Appleby I give pigs, cows, calves chickens, all contents of barn, woodshed, laundry, coal in cellar, shop contents and three hundred dollars, furniture in his bedroom if he is living with me at the time of my death the above list will go for those taken care of my place."
The executors delivered to the plaintiff the above property, all of the aggregate value of $227, and in addition thereto the sum of $270 in cash, withholding $30 for the inheritance taxes.
The plaintiff at the trial agreed to deduct from the amount of his claim, $2,640, the amount of his cash legacy plus the sum of $227, which was the reasonable value of the articles received by him, and claimed the right to recover from the estate the sum of $2,113, under the contract.
The defendants offered evidence to prove the following facts:
Augusta M. Clark was an invalid and for a number of years unable to supervise the running of her homestead and care for her premises, which consisted of the homestead and several acres of land in and about the same. In October, 1917, she employed the plaintiff, under an agreement that he was to receive for the care of her premises the sum of $40 per month, and in addition thereto living accommodations and food for himself and his wife. From the time of his employment to October 1, 1918, the plaintiff received from Augusta M. Clark $40 a month as his wages, and free accommodations for himself and his wife in the house and also free board. On or about October 1, 1918, plaintiff stated to Augusta M. Clark that he ought to receive more wages than he was then receiving, but she refused to agree to pay more. After this conversation Augusta M. Clark drew her will and submitted the draft of the same to the judge of probate of Old Lyme, for his inspection, and at that time stated to him that the plaintiff had agreed to stay with her during her lifetime at the rate of wages she was then paying him, namely, $40 a month. The draft of a will shown to the judge of probate was subsequently executed by Augusta M. Clark, and it contained a bequest in favor of the plaintiff of a certain sum of money and certain personal property, which were delivered to the plaintiff by the executors and accepted by the plaintiff. During the terms of his employment the plaintiff performed services for others, for which he received and retained the compensation. The plaintiff remained in the employ of Augusta M. Clark and performed such services as he did perform under the agreement that he was to receive $40 a month.
Charles Hadlai Hull, of New London, for appellant.
Arthur T. Keefe, of New London, for appellees.
CURTIS, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The complaint alleges, and the finding discloses, evidence offered by the plaintiff tending to prove a parol contract between the plaintiff and the testate, Augusta M. Clark whereby the plaintiff agreed to render services as caretaker and manager of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burkle v. Superflow Mfg. Co.
...clause of the statute unless its terms are so drawn that it cannot by any possibility be performed fully within one year. Appleby v. Noble, 101 Conn. 54, 57, 124 A. 717; Clark v. Pendleton, 20 Conn. 495, 508; Russell v. Slade, 12 Conn. 455, 460; Warner v. Taxas & P. Ry. Co., 164 U.S. 418, 1......
-
C.R. Klewin, Inc. v. Flagship Properties, Inc.
...within a year from the time when it was made, it is not within the statute." (Emphases added.) In this century, in Appleby v. Noble, 101 Conn. 54, 57, 124 A. 717 (1924), this court held that " '[a] contract is not within this clause of the statute unless its terms are so drawn that it canno......
-
Limberger v. Burke Ridge Construction, LLC
...than one year--indeed, they deny that they contracted for the plaintiff's services at all. Accordingly, under the court's holdings in Appleby and Klewin, the alleged oral contract is not within the statute of frauds. Summary judgment is therefore denied on that ground. Special Defenses The ......
- Finance Corp. of New England v. Scard