Estate of Reeves v. Moore

• Decision Date: 27 April 1892
• Docket Number: 473
• Citation: 31 N.E. 44,4 Ind.App. 492
• Parties: ESTATE OF REEVES v. MOORE
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

31 N.E. 44

4 Ind.App. 492

ESTATE OF REEVES v. MOORE

No. 473

Court of Appeals of Indiana

April 27, 1892

From the Hancock Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

E Marsh and W. W. Cook, for appellant.

J. J Blackford, H. Warrum and T. S. Rollins, for appellee.

OPINION

NEW J.

Emma L. Moore, the appellee, filed a claim against the estate of Benjamin Reeves, deceased, to recover $ 728 for wor, and labor alleged to have been performed for the decedent, at his request, beginning in the year 1882 and ending in the year 1889.

There were no other pleadings.

The cause was by agreement of the parties submitted to a jury for trial. The jury returned a general verdict for the appellee for $ 150, as, also, answers to interrogatories submitted by the court at the request of the parties.

A motion by the appellant for judgment on the answers to the interrogatories, notwithstanding the general verdict, was overruled, and exception taken. A motion by the appellant for a new trial was also overruled, and exception saved.

Judgment was rendered for the appellee for the amount named in the general verdict.

The appellant has assigned as error that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, that the court erred in overruling the appellant's motion for judgment on the answers by the jury to the interrogatories, and in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.

The first assignment of error is waived, because not discussed.

We can not say that the court erred in overruling the appellant's motion for judgment on the answers of the jury to the interrogatories.

The answers to interrogatories override the general verdict only when both can not stand together, the antagonism being such, upon the face of the record, as is beyond possibility of removal, by any evidence admissible under the issues in the cause. Lockwood v. Rose, 125 Ind. 588, 25 N.E. 710; Weller v. Bectell, 2 Ind.App. 228, 28 N.E. 333; Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Rose, 3 Ind.App. 269, 29 N.E. 616.

One of the grounds assigned for a new trial is, that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

In our opinion the appellant is entitled to a new trial upon this ground.

Any benefit, of a sort commonly the subject of a pecuniary compensation, which one, not intending it as a gift, confers on another who accepts it, is, although there be no agreement in fact, an adequate foundation for the law's implied or created promise to render back its value. Where one is employed in the service of another the law implies a promise to pay, and where one accepts and retains the beneficial results of another's services, the law will imply a previous request for the services, and a promise to pay for them. Chamness v. Cox, 2 Ind.App. 485, 28 N.E. 777; James v. Gillen, 3 Ind.App. 472, 30 N.E. 7; Moreland Tp. v. Davidson Tp., 71 Pa. 371; Perry v. Bailey, 12 Kan. 539; Ford v. Ward, 26 Ark. 360; Bishop Contracts, section 217.

The presumption of which we have spoken, however, may be removed by evidence that the relations between the parties were such as to exclude the inference that they were dealing on the footing of contract. Chamness v. Cox, supra; Webster v. Wadsworth, 44 Ind. 283; Hays v. McConnell, 42 Ind. 285. See, also, State, ex rel., v. Clark, 16 Ind. 97; Marquess v. La Baw, 82 Ind. 550; State, ex rel., v. Roche, 91 Ind. 406; Wright v. McLarinan, 92 Ind. 103.

We have closely examined the evidence. It is voluminous, and we shall not attempt to give more than a condensed statement of what it establishes upon the leading and controlling question in the case.

Benjamin Reeves, the decedent, and his wife, were living alone upon a farm of ninety acres. Reeves was an old man in feeble health. He had his third wife, who enjoyed reasonable health. His land possessed a rental value of $ 3.50 per acre, and he owned personal property of the value of $ 300. The appellee was an orphan, one of five children, and aged about fourteen years when she went to the decedent's to live. She was under the guardianship of one Benton L. Barrett, who was seeking a home for her. For the purpose of securing her a home he saw the decedent. Barrett testified as a witness, and among other things said: "I was hunting a home for the girl, and the purpose of the conversation was to find a home what the expenses would be, and he proposed to keep her as one of his family. I told him the home she had been at was very objectionable from the fact that she had very poor treatment, and that I wanted her to go to school, and that she must go to school, and with that fact he took the girl. I was looking for a home for the girl. He said he...