Callahan v. Wood
| Decision Date | 29 April 1896 |
| Citation | 24 S.E. 542,118 N.C. 752 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | CALLAHAN. v. WOOD. |
Claims against Estate—Services of Relatives.
Where a son-in-law and his family and mother-in-law, for 14 years lived together as "one family" at her house, without any agreement for payment for services on either side, and no payment was made except in mutual services, he was not entitled to recover from her estate, on an implied promise, the value of his own and wife's services to her during that time.
Appeal from superior court, Rutherford county; Timberlake, Judge.
Action by J. N. Callahan against John Wood, administrator. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Webb & Webb, for appellant.
McBrayer & Durham and M. H. Justice, for appellee.
The plaintiff sues for the value of services rendered his mother-in-law prior to her death. The referee finds, in substance, that the mother-in-law had property sufficient for her support, and that the plaintiff married her daughter at, and he and his wife lived in, the house of her mother for 14 years before and until the death of the latter. He also finds that "Mrs. Corbet and plaintiff's family lived together as one family during the time" in the house of the mother-in-law, and that plaintiff's five children were bom under her roof; all the parties rendering assistance to each other during the time. There was no agreement to pay either way, and nothing was paid except in such mutual services. Doesthe law imply a promise to pay the plaintiff for the services of himself and wife under these circumstances? We think it does not. The general rule is that when work is done for another the law implies a promise to pay for it, and it is based on the presumption arising out of the ordinary dealings among men. But this presumption may be rebutted by the relations of the parties. The cases of father and child, stepfather and child, grandfather and child have been held to be exceptions to the rule, in which they were not in the relation of strangers. Is there any reason more favorable to a son-in-law, under the situation in the present case, where the relation of "one family" was established and recognized by the parties until death, without any fact found or evidence tending to show that there was any intention on the one part to pay for the services, or on the other part to charge for the same? The law does not look favorably upon such after-death charges, in the absence of any intention between ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Seay
...N.C. 67, 33 S.E.2d 477; Landreth v. Morris, 214 N.C. 619, 200 S.E. 378; Winklier v. Killiam, 141 N.C. 575, 54 S.E. 540; Callahan v. Wood, 118 N.C. 752, 24 S.E. 542; Williams v. Barnes, 14 NC. 348; Mordecai's Law Lectures, 2d ed., In the case at bar the plaintiff and the testatrix were first......
-
Dunn v. Currie
...50 N. C. 217; Dodson v. McAdams, 96 N. C. 149, 2 S. E. 453, 60 Am. Rep. 408; Young v. Herman, 97 N. C. 280, 1 S. E. 792; Callahan v. Wood, 118 N. C. 753, 24 S. E. 542; Avitt v. Smith, 120 N. C. 392, 27 S. E. 91; Hicks v. Barnes, 132 N. C. 146, 43 S. E. 604; Stallings v. Ellis, 136 N. C. 69,......
-
Dunn v. Currie
...Lutz, 50 N.C. 217; Dodson v. McAdams, 96 N.C. 149, 2 S.E. 453, 60 Am. Rep. 408; Young v. Herman, 97 N.C. 280, 1 S.E. 792; Callahan v. Wood, 118 N.C. 753, 24 S.E. 542; Avitt v. Smith, 120 N.C. 392, 27 S.E. 91; v. Barnes, 132 N.C. 146, 43 S.E. 604; Stallings v. Ellis, 136 N.C. 69, 48 S.E. 548......
-
Brown v. Hatcher, 607
...v. Sanders, 260 N.C. 291, 132 S.E.2d 582; Twiford v. Waterfield, 240 N.C. 582, 83 S.E.2d 548. This case is analogous to Callahan v. Wood, 118 N.C. 752, 24 S.E. 542, in which the plaintiff, a son-in-law, sued the estate of his mother-in-law for services rendered her prior to her death. He ha......