Bates v. Howell's Estate (In re Howell's Estate)

• Citation: 179 Iowa 969,162 N.W. 231
• Decision Date: 06 April 1917
• Docket Number: No. 31401.,31401.
• Parties: IN RE HOWELL'S ESTATE. BATES v. HOWELL'S ESTATE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

179 Iowa 969

162 N.W. 231

IN RE HOWELL'S ESTATE.BATES

v.HOWELL'S ESTATE.

No. 31401.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 6, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; W. H. McHenry, Judge.

This was a proceeding in probate to establish a claim against the estate. The case was tried to a jury, and the claim was allowed and established in the sum of $15,300. The administrator appeals. Affirmed.Henry & Henry, of Des Moines, for appellant.

N. E. Coffin and Parsons & Mills, all of Des Moines, for appellee.

PRESTON, J.

No objection is urged by appellant to the claim except as to the filing of the amended and substituted claim. The error relied upon for reversal is that the court erred in allowing the presentation to the jury of the amended and substituted claim, on the theory that it was not germane, but was an entirely separate and distinct claim from that originally presented. The statute of limitations is argued, but it is not strictly such, but only whether the amended and substituted claim, if it is a separate and distinct claim from that originally filed, was filed in time. If it be held that the amendment was proper and germane to the original claim, then it is unnecesary to discuss the question of the date of the filing or the statute of limitations, and we will now take up that question.

The original and the amended and substituted claim are somewhat lengthy, covering several pages in the abstract. We shall set out enough of each to present the claim of the different parties. The claim as originally filed recites:

That the plaintiff claims of the estate the sum of $40,000. “That from January, 1894, up to the death of said Jennie F. Howell in May, 1914, plaintiff performed labor and services for the said estate, and for her benefit, and at her instance and request, as the general manager and superintendent of her farm and other properties and adviser in all her business and personal affairs. That he assisted in caring for deceased and for her father. That he performed said labor and discharged said duties during said period of 20 years without any compensation except his board and a few clothes, and that the total cash paid plaintiff or for his benefit by decedent did not exceed the sum of $30 per year during the entire period that said labor and services were performed for deceased under the distinct oral understanding, agreement, and promises of the said Jennie F. Howell, repeatedly made to plaintiff by her, that she would some day fully and liberally compensate plaintiff for all of his time, work, and services and for all of his kindness and helpfulness whenever she had available money and property with which so to do, and would execute a will in favor of the plaintiff and therein devise and bequeath to plaintiff a home and plenty of land to go with it, and ample property and means with which to equip said farm so devised to plaintiff by said decedent, and so provide for plaintiff that plaintiff for the remainder of his days would have a good home and a good living without work and without wanting any of the comforts of life, and the said Jennie F. Howell frequently and repeatedly stated to and promised the plaintiff that she and the plaintiff were and would continue to be in the future partners in all of her property and business and have a permanent home together as long as they should live, and that plaintiff should have and receive one-half of all that she owned, acquired, or possessed while living and become her heir in the event of her death.”

The claim then proceeds to state that about 1894 plaintiff and deceased became engaged to be married, but that it was postponed because of the condition of her father's health and of her own physical infirmities, and then proceeds in more detail to state the promises to make a will, etc.

During the trial claimant asked leave to file what was denominated an amended and substituted claim, which, as appellant contends, is founded upon the rendering of certain services by claimant to the decedent without any express agreement on the part of decedent as to payment for said services, or for a partnership, or for the making of her will in his behalf, and with no reference to any marriage agreement. A condensed statement of the amended and substituted claim is substantially as follows: He claims $40,000. That plaintiff worked for deceased as superintendent and general manager of the farm and acted as general assistant and confidential adviser in all of her business and affairs, and performed labor for her, and assumed the responsibility of the management of her farm and other properties. That during all of said time claimant did all these things without any compensation except his board and a few clothes, and that the total cash payment paid claimant or for his benefit by deceased did not exceed $30 per year during the entire period. That this claimant alleges and claims that the reasonable value of the services rendered by this claimant to the decedent during said period was the sum of...