Freeman v. Phillips
Decision Date | 16 July 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 50535,No. 1,50535,1 |
Citation | 218 S.E.2d 144,135 Ga.App. 466 |
Parties | Lucille W. FREEMAN v. Effie PHILLIPS et al |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harold E. Martin, Jackson, for appellant.
Charles R. Marchman, Jr., Denmark Groover, Jr., Macon, for appellees.
The plaintiff below, daughter of the testatrix, brought this action against her mother's estate, the defendants below, for the value of services she rendered to her mother prior to the latter's death. The evidence, as contained in the plaintiff's affidavit and deposition and that of the guardian of the testatrix shows that the plaintiff cared for her mother, who was unable to care for herself, for a period of twenty months at the plaintiff's house. No agreement was made between the mother and her daughter, but an agreement was made with the guardian of the mother to pay the plaintiff $100.00 per month, as 'room and board.' The plaintiff states in her affidavit that her mother's care made great demands upon her and 'necessitated constant attention 24 hours a day.' She also states that she 'was led to expect by the conduct and actions of members of my immediate family, that I would later receive payment for my extensive services rendered to my mother.' Plaintiff also states that she was a registered practical nurse and, in her complaint, she prayed for the value of her 'services and facilities' ($300.00 per month), over and above what she had received from the guardian as payment for room and board.
The defendant executrixes of the estate, appealed from a denial of their motion for summary judgment contending that, on these facts, it should be decided as a matter of law that the plaintiff performed these services out of a final obligation rather than a contractual one. Held:
Code § 3-107 provides: '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.' It is not necessary that the 'near relative' prove an express contract in order to recover for services that ordinarily would be deemed gratuitous because of her relationship to the deceased. Bleckley v. Bleckley, 189 Ga. 47(5), 5 S.E.2d 206. Nevertheless, 'the surrounding circumstances must plainly indicate that it was the intention of both parties that compensation should be made.' Hudson v. Hudson, 90 Ga. 581, 16 S.E. 349; O'Kelly v. Faulkner, 92 Ga. 521, 17 S.E.2d 847. (Emphasis supplied.) Wall v. Wall, 15 Ga.App. 156(2), 160, 82 S.E. 791, 793; Edwards v. Smith, 42 Ga.App. 730(1), 157 S.E. 348. Even though there are a few decisions in Georgia wherein this question was decided as a matter of law Cooper...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Babb v. Potts
...each case should be submitted to the jury under proper instructions as to the law as herein set forth. [Cits.]" Freeman v. Phillips, 135 Ga.App. 466, 468, 218 S.E.2d 144 (1975). The evidence in this case did not demand an inference that the services performed for Wilson by appellee were gra......
-
McRae v. Britton
...facts of each case should be submitted to the jury under proper instructions as to the law . . . (cits.)." Freeman v. Phillips, 135 Ga.App. 466, 468, 218 S.E.2d 144, 145 (1975). " It is error for the trial court to direct a verdict where there is some evidence which, together with all reaso......
- Yancey Bros. Co. v. Sure Quality Framing Contractors, Inc., 50481