Bokelmann v. Bokelmann
| Decision Date | 11 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | 27,733 |
| Citation | 230 N.W. 478,180 Minn. 100 |
| Parties | BERTHA BOKELMANN v. HENRY BOKELMANN |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendant appealed from an order of the district court for Martin county, Haycraft, J. denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. Affirmed.
Services furnished sick mother -- evidence of daughter's earnings.
1. In considering the question as to whether services rendered by a daughter in caring for a sick mother were necessaries for which the father was liable or were being rendered gratuitously, evidence as to the amount the daughter was earning in the position she left to take up that work was admissible over the general objection of incompetency irrelevancy, and immateriality.
Verdict sustained.
2. The jury's determination of the value of the services rendered had ample support in the evidence. The verdict was not excessive or given under the influence of passion and prejudice.
Work and Labor, 40 Cyc. p. 2846 n. 95; p. 2853 n. 37.
See note in 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 880; 28 R.C.L. 680; R.C.L. Perm. Supp. 6184.
Gaarentroom & Erickson and Frundt & Morse, for appellant.
Putnam & Carlson, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
Plaintiff, the daughter of defendant, sued him on five causes of action, each being for services rendered as housekeeper and nurse in taking care of his invalid wife, the mother of plaintiff. One theory upon which plaintiff sought to recover was that she furnished necessaries to the mother and that defendant was liable therefor under G.S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 8620. The services covered a period of 33 months, not continuous, and the amount claimed was $3,300 and certain items of interest. A general denial was interposed as to each cause of action. The jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor for $3,000.
The main ground of defense during the trial was that the services rendered by plaintiff, an immediate member of defendant's family, were gratuitous and that there was no understanding that plaintiff was to be paid therefor. At the close of plaintiff's case defendant moved for a dismissal of the action, and at the close of all the evidence moved for a directed verdict on the ground above stated, both motions being denied.
The ultimate questions of fact for the determination of the jury under the instructions of the court were: (1) Were the services rendered by plaintiff necessaries; (2) were the services rendered by plaintiff under the expectation and agreement that she would be compensation therefor by defendant; (3) what was the reasonable value of such services. Defendant now frankly and properly concedes that under the rule in Bergh v. Warner, 47 Minn. 250, 50 N.W. 77, 28 A.S.R. 362, the first two questions were for the jury's determination under proper instructions and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict in some amount.
The assignments of error in addition to the one that the verdict was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law are: (a) The overruling of an objection to a question asked; and (b) a claim that the verdict was excessive and given under the influence of passion and prejudice.
Plaintiff had been for many years a professional nurse; at the time of the trial she was 35 years of age, her father 78 and her mother a few years younger than the father. Plaintiff was away from home practicing her profession on five different occasions during the six years preceding the bringing of the action. At five different times, at the request of her mother and with the consent of defendant, she returned home for various periods of time (ranging from four months to a year each) at which time she performed the services alleged in the complaint. When her mother would sufficiently recover on each occasion plaintiff resumed her professional work elsewhere.
1. When the main defense in the case was being considered, that is the question as to whether the services were necessary and were being rendered gratuitously or with the intention of receiving compensation therefor, plaintiff, after testifying as to her work in 1921-1922 in New York as a trained nurse in a hospital and her leaving there to come home, was asked: "And about what was the salary you were receiving?" An objection was interposed upon the ground that it was incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial (it was not indicated that the ground of the objection was as to an improper measure of damages). The following...
To continue reading
Request your trial