Estate Rachel B. Superior Celia Sattinger
| Decision Date | 17 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | 32,902 |
| Citation | 300 N.W. 393,211 Minn. 108 |
| Parties | In Re Estate Of Rachel B. Superior; Celia Sattinger v. First Trust Company Of Saint Paul |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The probate court of Ramsey county disallowed the claim of Celia Sattinger against the estate of Rachel B. Superior, and she appealed to the district court, where issues were framed and the case tried de novo before Hugo O. Hanft, Judge, and a jury. After verdict of $22,000 for claimant, respondent as administrator moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The motion for judgment was denied but a new trial was granted unless claimant should consent to a reduction of the verdict to $15,000, in which case the motion for a new trial was denied. Claimant consented to the reduction, and respondent appealed from the order. Affirmed.
Sanborn & Andre, for appellant.
Nelson & Mohan, Norman R. Tyre, and Irving Levy, for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gallagher
Executor and administrator -- claim -- services rendered and nature thereof -- right to compensation.
1. Under rule that where services rendered are such as one friend might perform for another the circumstances must show that compensation was expected or contemplated by the parties before recovery may be had for their reasonable value evidence held sufficient to sustain verdict for claimant in proceeding for allowance of claim against estate of decedent.
Executor and administrator -- claim -- services rendered -- when payable -- limitation of action.
2. Under the California law, here applicable, where it reasonably appeared that payment for services was to be made at the termination thereof, and the jury so found, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until that time.
Trial -- instructions refusal to instruct.
3. Held not error for trial court to refuse to instruct jury to disregard testimony of nurses as to statements made by decedent during her last illness, on ground that statements were made when decedent was mentally incompetent, where it was not shown that such statements were made during certain periods of irrationality although it was shown that decedent had such periods, since the claimed statements went to credibility rather than to admissibility.
Rachel B. Superior, a resident of St. Paul, died intestate on April 27, 1939, at the age of about 82 years. Probate proceedings were thereafter instituted in Ramsey county. Celia Sattinger of West Los Angeles, California, a distant relative, filed a claim against the estate for $50,000 for services alleged to have been rendered and performed at the instance and request of decedent "consisting of acting as her companion counselor, chauffeur, preparing and serving her meals running her errands, nursing, administering medicines dressing and undressing her, waiting on her, and performing many other necessary duties." The claim was based upon an express promise by decedent to pay claimant "by a bequest in her Will the sum of Fifty Thousand and 00/100 ($50,000.00) Dollars," alleged to be the reasonable value of the services claimed to have been rendered between June 29, 1929, and April 27, 1939.
The claim was disallowed in toto by the probate court. Thereafter claimant appealed to district court, where issues were framed and the case tried to a jury. There claimant elected to rely solely upon quantum meruit. A verdict was returned in favor of claimant for $22,000. The trial court denied the motion of the administrator for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as well as its motion for a new trial, but conditioned the latter upon claimant's consent to a reduction of the verdict to $15,000. She so consented. The administrator appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment non obstante or a new trial.
About 1928 Miss Superior and her sister, Jennie Jacob, began spending the winter months in California. Miss Superior had previously met Celia out there and had visited with her. Celia was 25 years old and married when she commenced rendering the services here involved. She had one child and was expecting another. Miss Superior was then about 70 years of age.
On June 28, 1929, Miss Superior, in St. Paul, sent the following telegram to Mr. Sattinger, Celia's husband, in Los Angeles:
"Jennie is in the hospital Am afraid very sick I am sick in bed at home Very much worried about her Do you want to send Celia not the baby as she will be a great help to us Do not bring a lot of clothes Wire answer."
In response to this telegram, Celia went to St. Paul and for about three weeks took care of Miss Superior. She then returned to her home in California. From then until her death in 1939, Miss Superior lived about six months out of each year in California. She suffered from a disease of the heart, tachycardia, which affected her at irregular intervals. Severe attacks were followed by periods of convalescence. There is evidence that from 1934 on she had coronary heart disease, general arteriosclerosis, gall bladder trouble, and considerable difficulty with her eyes. When sick her spirits were depressed.
There is no dispute that Celia spent a good deal of time with Miss Superior while the latter was in California. When Miss Superior was ill, and the jury could find that this was often, Celia read to her, told her stories, combed her hair, manicured her fingernails, put drops in her eyes, and rendered other personal services. When Miss Superior was well they went together on automobile rides. Strong bonds of friendship existed between them. Celia's services could be described as those of a companion and nurse.
The appeal presents two questions: (1) Does the evidence sustain the verdict as reduced; and (2) does the statute of limitations bar the claim except as to the portions covering services rendered two years prior to death? The parties agree that California law governs the case.
1. Where one person performs services for another the law implies a promise on the part of the recipient to pay for them. Mayborne v. Citizens T. & S. Bank, 46 Cal.App. 178, 188 P. 1034; Crane v. Derrick, 157 Cal. 667, 109 P. 31. The present suit is in quantum meruit, and recovery may be had even though no express oral agreement is shown. Reeves v. Vallow (Cal. App.) 95 P.2d 945.
Appellant argues that no compensable services were rendered because claimant performed only such offices or favors as one friend might do for another, and that therefore the implication of law ordinarily raised by the proof of performance of services vanishes....
To continue reading
Request your trial