Cooper v. Cooper

Decision Date15 March 1939
Docket Number27273.
Citation2 S.E.2d 145,59 Ga.App. 832
PartiesCOOPER v. COOPER et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Rehearing Granted March 25, 1939.

Judgment Adhered to March 30, 1939.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

S. W Fariss, of La Fayette, for plaintiff in error.

G. W Langford and Rosser & Shaw, all of La Fayette, for defendants in error.

STEPHENS Presiding Judge.

1. "Ordinarily, when one renders services or transfers property valuable to another, which the latter accepts, a promise is implied to pay the reasonable value thereof; but this presumption does not usually arise in cases between very near relatives." Code, § 3-107. Where a person renders valuable services to another, which the latter accepts, a contract to pay therefor is implied in law, unless from the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the services, the relationship between the parties, including kinship, it appears that the services were rendered out of consideration of love and affection or otherwise rendered gratuitously. Where, however, services which are in the nature of nursing, waiting upon and ministering to the wants and necessities of an infirm, diseased and aged parent, are rendered by the son, there is a presumption that the services are rendered in filial duty and affection, and not because of expected compensation in money or property, in the absence of any express agreement between the parties for compensation, or of any facts or circumstances indicating that it was intended and contemplated by both the parent and the son, that payment should be made. Hudson v. Hudson, 90 Ga. 581, 16 S.E. 349; Jackson v. Buice, 132 Ga. 51, 63 S.E. 823; Murrell v. Studstill, 104 Ga. 604, 30 S.E. 750.

2. Where a husband and wife are living together the husband is entitled to the services of the wife, and any valuable services which she may render to another are rendered by the husband, by and through the instrumentality of the wife as his agent. Code, §§ 53-501, 4-101; Childs v Charles, 46 Ga.App. 648, 168 S.E. 914. Where an aged father comes to live in the home of his son, where the house belongs to the father, and, while living there, the father becomes ill, and is cared for by the son's wife during his sickness, and his wants ministered to by her, and the son and his wife are living together, the services thus rendered to the father are rendered by the son, through the agency of the wife. If, during the performance of the services by the wife to her husband's father, the husband agrees with his wife that she perform the services and shall herself be entitled to compensation therefor from the father, such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hollifield v. Monte Vista Biblical Gardens
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 8 août 2001
    ...against the party benefitted. Smith Dev. v. Flood, 198 Ga. App. 817, 819-821(3), 403 S.E.2d 249 (1991); see also Cooper v. Cooper, 59 Ga.App. 832-833(1), 2 S.E.2d 145 (1939); Guyton v. Young, supra at 162, 65 S.E.2d In this case, Hollifield provided the services and plantings to benefit him......
  • Young v. Lewis
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 16 février 1944
    ...Busby v. Marshall, 3 Ga.App. 764, 60 S.E. 376. The same authorities are applicable as to paragraph 8 of the demurrer. Cooper v. Cooper, 59 Ga.App. 832, 2 S.E.2d 145, cited by counsel for plaintiff, does not apply to the instant case because in that case there was no express or implied contr......
  • Young v. Lewis
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 16 février 1944
    ... ... Quoting Busby v. Marshall, 3 Ga.App. 764, 60 S.E ... 376. The same authorities are applicable as to paragraph 8 of ... the demurrer. Cooper v. Cooper, 59 Ga.App. 832, 2 ... S.E.2d 145, cited by counsel for plaintiff, does not apply to ... the instant case because in that case there was ... ...
  • Lovin v. Poss, 33198
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 28 février 1978
    ...this presumption does not usually arise in cases between very near relatives." (Emphasis supplied.) Code § 3-107. In Cooper v. Cooper, 59 Ga.App. 832(3), 2 S.E.2d 145 (1939), it was pointed out that there must have been either an express contract or agreement, or facts or circumstances whic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT