Dey v. Quinn

• Citation: 21 Ariz. 265,187 P. 578
• Decision Date: 25 February 1920
• Docket Number: Civil 1708
• Parties: RICHARD V. DEY, Appellant, v. JAMES QUINN, Appellee
• Court: Supreme Court of Arizona

187 P. 578

21 Ariz. 265

RICHARD V. DEY, Appellant, v. JAMES QUINN, Appellee

Civil No. 1708

Supreme Court of Arizona

February 25, 1920

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Graham. A. G. McAlister, Judge. Affirmed.

Mr George J. Stoneman, for Appellant.

Mr. W R. Chambers, for Appellee.

OPINION

BAKER J.

The plaintiff sues for $2,100 upon a quantum meruit for the value of services alleged to have been performed for the defendant. The defendant denied the alleged indebtedness, and pleaded that plaintiff had been paid for all services rendered by him for the defendant.

The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and upon the introduction of all the testimony the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,200, after deducting several payments that had been made to plaintiff. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

Three assignments of error are made. These assignments raise only one question, i.e., the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. The contention is made that the evidence shows conclusively that whatever services were rendered by plaintiff for defendant were done and performed gratuitously, and without any intention or expectation of payment therefor.

It is well settled that when one is employed in the services of another for any period of time, the law implies a promise to pay what such services are reasonably worth, unless it is understood that the services were to be rendered gratuitously, or unless they were rendered under circumstances which repel the presumption. 40 Cyc. 2808, 2809; Moreland v. Davidson, 71 Pa. 371; Ploger v.Bright, 119 N.Y.S. 628. Many other cases could be cited.

The evidence introduced on behalf of the plaintiff is somewhat meager, and not as full and explicit as might be desired, but, taking this evidence as true, we think that it is susceptible of the fair construction that plaintiff at the request of defendant rendered services for the defendant as his agent in and about the defendant's mining properties in Graham county. The plaintiff testified that the services were reasonably worth the sum of $100 per month, which fact seems to be uncontradicted by any other testimony in the case.

The fact appears that plaintiff acted in such capacity for a period of twenty-one months, and that during this time he frequently advised defendant in reference to the smelter assays and as to the causes of trouble in making such assays and...