Carlson v. Krantz
| Decision Date | 22 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | 25,834 |
| Citation | 214 N.W. 928,172 Minn. 242 |
| Parties | VICTOR CARLSON v. JOHN A. KRANTZ |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover the value of services performed. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed from an order, Kenny, J denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. Reversed.
New trial necessary in interests of justice.
1. Plaintiff's claim is that he was installed on a farm of defendant under a promise that he might remain there for life and that defendant would support him, furnishing him food and clothing and money for incidental expenses. If there was a contract, it has been breached by defendant, but the alleged agreement, viewed as a contract, is of so unusual a nature and so characterized by motives of kindliness and charity rather than of contract that, there having been a substantial verdict for plaintiff, a new trial is considered necessary in the interests of justice.
Law will not imply a contract when promises are made solely for charitable purposes.
2. Even though services are rendered or acts done on request, there is no liability where the circumstances repel the inference that compensation was intended. So when services are performed, acts done, or promises made solely for charitable purposes and without the intention of assuming contractual obligation, the law will not imply such obligation.
Nelson & Cedergren, for appellant.
Jenswold Jenswold & Dahle, for respondent.
Action on contract wherein, after verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial.
Defendant is a minister of the gospel and in 1911, in which year the alleged contract was made, was the pastor of a church at Duluth. Plaintiff is single and until 1911 had been very much of a wayfaring man, much of his life having been spent before the mast. Being a slave to the liquor habit but having the desire to reform, he sought the aid of defendant, who had long been his dependable friend and spiritual adviser. The effort was not in vain, and no question is made of the initial disinterestedness of the efforts of defendant on behalf of plaintiff, which had characterized the acquaintance between the two for some time prior to the making of the alleged contract.
Defendant owns a fractional quarter section of wilderness land on the shores of Grand Lake in St. Louis county. Its potentialities as a summer residence or agricultural property are suggested but not clear. Defendant acquired it before 1911 and has owned it ever since. Except as hereinafter stated, it has never been improved and neither he nor his family has made personal use of it. If it was acquired as a long-time investment, the purpose has been achieved so far as duration is concerned.
Plaintiff's story is that in 1911, at his own solicitation, defendant took him out to this land, which we shall designate as the farm, and first installed him in the home of a neighbor, where defendant paid his board. At plaintiff's solicitation, defendant soon built a substantial log cabin on the farm, admittedly for the use of plaintiff and to afford him a habitation where he could keep aloof from the temptations of the old life from which he was attempting escape. That purpose is not only clear but also conceded to have been the dominating purpose of the transaction, whether it was contract or mere charity. After the house, a substantial barn and root cellar were added, a well sunk and some fencing done. The cost of all the improvements was borne by defendant except that some of the common labor was done by plaintiff. Plaintiff continued his residence on the land, with unimportant interruptions, until 1924. Then, if there was a contract, it was breached by defendant, who required plaintiff to vacate or at least refused longer to maintain him on the farm. During all this period defendant had no income from the place. Neither did he make any use of it save that on a few occasions he and one or two of the younger members of his family were there for short periods. Defendant bought and paid for a horse which plaintiff used on the premises. Likewise, he bought a cow for plaintiff's use. Defendant furnished food supplies, clothing and other necessities required by plaintiff, including money for incidental expenses.
On his part, plaintiff remained on the place and did some work there, but in extent and value it lacks much of being commensurate either with the duration of his stay or the amount defendant has expended on him. He has done not to exceed 15 acres of clearing, and not to exceed ten acres have ever been cropped. The rest plaintiff claims to have "parked." Some fruit trees have been planted. Further detail is unnecessary, but it is safe to generalize to the effect that, considering that plaintiff was on the place for 13 years, the physical improvement resulting from his efforts has been relatively insignificant, a situation explained probably by physical disability and advancing years.
The contract claimed for plaintiff is that, in consideration of his agreement to go onto the place and live there as a sort of caretaker, there being very little attempt in the record to state what real obligation he assumed, the defendant promised to maintain him on the farm, furnishing sufficient money for food, clothing and incidental expenses as long as he should live. In other words, if the contract was made as claimed by plaintiff, he thereby became a life tenant on the farm without obligation to pay rent, even to the extent of keeping up taxes, and without any obligation to do a single thing beneficial for his lessor, defendant, except that it is vaguely suggested that he assumed the duties of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial