Chamness v. Cox

• Decision Date: 14 October 1891
• Docket Number: 298
• Parties: CHAMNESS v. COX
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

28 N.E. 777

2 Ind.App. 485

CHAMNESS v. COX

No. 298

Court of Appeals of Indiana

October 14, 1891

From the Grant Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

C. L Henry and E. E. Hendee, for appellant.

W. H Carroll, G. D. Dean, and E. F. Daily, for appellee.

OPINION

NEW, C. J.

This cause was tried in the Grant Circuit Court, upon a change of venue from the circuit court of Madison county.

The complaint is in two paragraphs. The first paragraph is to recover $ 2,400 for work and labor alleged to have been performed by the appellee for the appellant, at his request beginning in the year 1881, and ending in the year 1888, at $ 300 per year. The second paragraph of the complaint is the same as the first, with the addition of one year's work and labor; also, fifteen hogs at $ 10 per head, and one cow at $ 25.

The appellant answered in three paragraphs: the general denial, payment, and that the work and labor sued for was done while the appellee was living as a member of the appellant's family, and, by mutual understanding and agreement, was paid and satisfied by the appellant furnishing the appellee with board, clothing, and other property desired by her.

To this answer the appellee replied the general denial.

The issues were tried by a jury, with a finding and judgment for the appellee in the sum of $ 300.

The appellant has assigned several errors, but his counsel discuss only the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

Of the grounds named for a new trial, the only one urged and relied on here is that the damages assessed are excessive.

The contention of counsel for appellant, as we understand them, is that, with the exception, perhaps, of some portion of the appellee's demand as to the personal property named in the second paragraph of the complaint, the appellee is not entitled to recover anything.

In other words, that, as alleged in the third paragraph of the answer, the work and labor sued for was done while the appellee was living as a member of the appellant's family, and, by mutual understanding and agreement, was paid and satisfied by the appellant furnishing the appellee with board, and with clothing, and other property.

Upon the trial there was evidence tending to show that the appellee, at the request of the appellant, did housekeeping and other work for the appellant, from January, 1881, to January, 1889, with the exception of about three months during that period. The appellee testified that her services...