Beall v. Hollinger

• Decision Date: 05 April 1926
• Docket Number: No. 4318.,4318.
• Parties: BEALL v. HOLLINGER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

12 F.2d 145 (1926)

BEALL v. HOLLINGER.

No. 4318.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted February 5, 1926.

Decided April 5, 1926.

H. E. Davis, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Leon Pretzfelder and R. J. Quigley, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the Supreme Court of the District in favor of the plaintiff, appellee here, against the defendant, appellant here, as administrator of the estate of Virginia Beckerdite, for services rendered the decedent from February of 1913 to the date of her death in February of 1923.

The declaration is in two counts, the first alleging that intestate, being unmarried and living alone, in poor health and unaccustomed to business affairs, undertook and promised the plaintiff that, if he would attend to and wait upon her during her illness and take charge of all her business matters as long as she lived, she would provide fair and reasonable compensation for the value of his services; that plaintiff, having agreed to and accepted the promises of the decedent, entered upon the services aforesaid and did everything in compliance with his part of the agreement; that the intestate accepted all of his services in accordance with her part of the agreement, although she did not make provision for the value of his services or any part thereof; and that the fair and reasonable value of such services was $3,000. The second count is on the common counts.

The bill of particulars annexed to each count is as follows: "To services rendered by A. Clifford Hollinger to Virginia Beckerdite, deceased, from February 1, 1913, to February 7, 1923, a period of ten years, at three hundred ($300) dollars per year, $3,000.00." Defendant pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations. Plaintiff joined issue on the pleas of the general issue and the statute of limitations, and averred that the cause of action did not accrue until February 7, 1923. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $3,000.

The evidence for the plaintiff, from witnesses whose testimony showed great familiarity with the situation, was to the effect that the plaintiff had fully performed the services mentioned in the declaration, one witness saying: "I know he performed a great many services for her; at one time she had a very sore hand, and could not use it at all, and Mr. Hollinger was there constantly very early in the morning until late at night; he waited on her; he dressed her hand; he did all her errands for her — brought in coal. She was sick about several months. Other than this time, when she was ill, during her last illness he performed a great many services; he did all the banking for her. I am telling what the dead told me. * * * I had a good many conversations during her lifetime with Miss Beckerdite in relation to Mr. Hollinger. She often said that she did not know what she would do without Mr. Hollinger, and that before she died she expected to remember him in her will; that she intended to leave him and pay him well for all he had done for her. * * * The statement that she made in regard to her intention to compensate him she made several times. The last time she made it was about two weeks before she died."

Another witness, who had known Miss Beckerdite about ten years prior to her death, testified: "I saw Mr. Hollinger there quite often; she used to send me around to his house after him; she told me that she wanted him to write her letters sometimes, and sometimes she wanted to send him to the bank to get some money, and sometimes she wanted him to go somewhere, and sometimes she wanted him to go to market. He used to bring in coal sometimes, did anything she wanted done while I was there and he was there; she asked him to do it and he was always ready to do it; she talked to me about Mr. Hollinger, said that she did not know what she would do without Cliff (plaintiff); she said that she expected to get some money, and if she ever got it Cliff would be well paid; she said it more than on a dozen occasions when she sent me out. Miss Beckerdite told me that she got some money, and if she was ever able to make a will she would be sure to remember Cliff well; those were her words to me when she was sick. * * * It was a few days before she died that she told me that; she told me more than twice; she told me every time I was with her when we talked about it; she told me that she intended to make a will, if she was ever able to."

There was other evidence to the same effect. The physician, Dr. J. Rozier Biggs, who attended decedent in her last illness, testifying for the plaintiff, produced a memorandum reading as follows: "Pole, $5.00; Elizabeth Gibson, $5.00; Mrs. Bertha Nash, Mrs. Crocket Miller, A. C. Hollinger, all personal effects, jewelry and money in bank, invested and otherwise. Also loan to Bradley, $497. Have no collateral."

This witness then stated that Mr. Hollinger gave him the paper on the evening of either the 4th or 5th of February, 1923; that witness took the memorandum, but said nothing to the patient about it that evening; that the next morning he showed Miss Beckerdite the paper, and talked with her in reference to it, "read to her what was on it, and asked what she wanted me to do with it. She said `I want you to make out my will as indicated there, with the exception that I do not want Mrs. Miller to have anything, because I think she has enough money, and I wanted to put you in my will, but I think you have enough, and I want the amount left as indicated, except as changed.'" The doctor declined to draw a will, and advised Miss Beckerdite to call in an attorney; but she said, "I feel very tired and it probably can rest a little while." She died two days later.

...