Blackwell v. De Arment's Estate
| Decision Date | 10 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 20072.,20072. |
| Citation | 300 S.W. 1035 |
| Parties | BLACKWELL v. DE ARMENT'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Proceeding in the probate court by Stella Hoyt Blackwell against the estate of Julia De Arment for the allowance of a claim. On appeal de novo to the circuit court, judgment was rendered for the defendant estate, and plaintiff, claimant, brings error. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
E. C. Edgar, of De Soto, for plaintiff in error.
P. S. Terry, of Festus, and Chas. H. Richeson, of Potosi, for defendant in error.
This action originated in the probate court of Washington county as a demand against the estate of Julia De Arment, deceased. The claim is for alleged services rendered by plaintiff in error to the deceased Julia De Arment. The statement of claim filed in the probate court is as follows:
The claim was duly sworn to and constitutes the only pleading in the case. The cause was tried in the probate court with a jury, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff in error in the sum of $1,701. The estate appealed to the circuit court of said county, where the matter was heard de novo before a jury, and at the close of plaintiff's case the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence, peremptorily instructing the jury to find for defendant in error. Judgment being rendered under the directed verdict, plaintiff took due steps and appealed to this court. Plaintiff, as appellant there, dismissed that appeal and within the statutory time sued out this writ of error, and the cause is now before us as such.
The defendant in error has filed no brief and has not given us the benefit of argument, either oral or printed. Therefore we are left with no pleadings in the case except such as has been set out as a statement of claim, and no theory being advanced by the defendant in error as to why this judgment should be sustained.
From the abstract of the record brought forward by the plaintiff in error, it appears that plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer as plaintiff, lived in the De Arment home, in Washington county, Mo., from July, 1898, until December, 1907. There is no evidence that there was any blood relationship existing between her and the De Arments. Several witnesses testified that plaintiff was in the De Arment home for such length of time in the capacity of a servant, doing practically all such work herself.
There is testimony from S. F. Rhodes to the effect that he moved near the home of the De Arments in December, 1906, and that he became acquainted with Julia De Arment and her husband, and that he knew both of them from that time on until their death; that he also at that time became acquainted with plaintiff, who was then working in the home of the De Arments; that he saw plaintiff do all of the housekeeping and the work generally done by a maid or servant. He testified that Mr. De Arment worked away from home in a store, and that Mrs. De Arment was not able to do any work; that he was many times drawn into conversation with Mr. and Mrs. De Arment in 1906 and again in 1907, and that he heard both of them say that the plaintiff had worked very hard for them, and that she should be paid at their death with one-half of their estate which they might leave; that this statement was made in the presence of plaintiff, and that they both had said to the witness in the presence of plaintiff that they had made such an agreement with the plaintiff, and that she was to be paid such amount provided she remained with them until she was 21 years of age. There is no dispute but that plaintiff did remain with them until after that time.
Witness Walter Blackwell, who is the husband of plaintiff, testified that he knew the De Arments during their lifetime, and that he had visited them before he and plaintiff were married. This witness said he had heard the De Arments say in the presence of plaintiff that if plaintiff remained with them until she was 21 years old and did the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vosburg v. Smith, 7253
...111 S.W.2d loc. cit. 926, 929(3); Aldridge v. Shelton's Estate, supra, 86 S.W.2d loc. cit. 396, 398(10); Blackwell v. DeArment's Estate, Mo.App., 300 S.W. 1035, 1036, 1037(1).11 In re Stein's Estate, supra, 177 S.W.2d loc. cit. 682(4); Hurst v. Hurst's Estate, Mo.App., 151 S.W.2d 543, 544(5......
-
Kopp v. Traders Gate City Nat. Bank
... ... 659 Margaret Kopp v. Traders Gate City National Bank, a Corporation, Executor of the Estate" of John J. O'Connell, Deceased, Appellant No. 40056 Supreme Court of Missouri March 8, 1948 ... \xC2" ... Hulen, 71 S.W.2d 752, 335 Mo. 167; Miller v ... Richardson, 56 S.W.2d 614; Blackwell v. De ... Arment's Estate, 30 S.W. 1035; Castorina v ... Herrmann, 104 S.W.2d 297, 340 Mo ... ...
-
Laughlin v. Boatmen's Nat. Bank of St. Louis
... 189 S.W.2d 974 354 Mo. 467 Marie H. Laughlin, Administratrix of the Estate of Randolph Laughlin, Deceased, v. The Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis, a Corporation, ... of action in assumpsit. In re Hukreda's Estate ... (Mo.), 172 S.W.2d 824; Blackwell v. De Arment's ... Estate (Mo. App.), 300 S.W. 1035; Joseph v. Joseph ... (Mo. App.), 164 ... ...
-
Broz v. Hegwood
... ... 920 Paul Broz, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. E. M. Hegwood, Administrator de bonis non of the estate of Adolph Broz; Elizabeth Broz, Anna Swantner, Mary Smetana, Theresa Hegwood, Rudolph Broz, Albina ... recover damages, the measure of damages being the contract ... price or its value. Blackwell v. De Arment's ... Estate, 300 S.W. 1035; Boldwin v. Lay, 226 S.W ... 602; Hall v. Getman, 121 ... ...