Gauss v. Trump

• Citation: 48 Mont. 92
• Parties: GAUSS v. TRUMP.
• Decision Date: 11 October 1913
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana

48 Mont. 92

GAUSS
v.
TRUMP.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Oct. 11, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Ravalli County; R. Lee McCulloch, Judge.

Action by John Gauss against Louise C. Trump, as administratrix with will annexed of Olive Ahrens, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

George T. Baggs, of Stevensville, and Tolan & Gaines, of Missoula, for appellant.

O'Hara, Edwards & Madeen, of Hamilton, for respondent.

SANNER, J.

The complaint of respondent alleges in substance that about May 15, 1906, he entered into an oral contract with Olive Ahrens, now deceased, in and by which it was agreed that he should perform work and labor in the care and management of her ranch during her lifetime in consideration that she should furnish him food, clothing, and other necessaries of life and that she should devise her said ranch property to him at her death; that he thereupon entered upon the duties thus imposed upon him and continued to discharge them until her death on December 14, 1910, and fully performed the contract on his part; that in March, 1910, “the said agreement was by mutual consent so modified that he, instead of receiving each year an unliquidated sum as and for necessaries under said agreement, took a lease of the premises which provided that he should receive one-half of the proceeds thereof, which was executed in lieu of the provision in said agreement for necessaries”; that his services rendered to her under the agreement were of the reasonable value of $75 per month, or $3,450 in all, no part of which has been paid; that Olive Ahrens died testate, but her will, which was duly admitted to probate, contained no devise or bequest whatever to him; “that hereafter, and after publication of notice to creditors of the estate of the said Olive Ahrens, deceased, had been made and before the time in said notice specified for the presentation of claims against the said estate had expired, and on or about the 19th day of September, 1911, the plaintiff * * * presented his claim for the reasonable value of the services aforesaid, * * * duly verified, * * * to the defendant herein as administratrix, * * * which claim was rejected; that thereafter, and on or about the 7th day of October, 1911, and before the time for presentation of claims against the said estate had expired,” the plaintiff presented an amended statement of his claim, duly verified, which claim received no action on the part of the administratrix, though more than ten days have elapsed.

The answer admits that in the will of Olive Ahrens there is not any devise or bequest to plaintiff, that plaintiff presented his claim on September 19, 1911, which was rejected, that he presented his amended claim on October 7, 1911, and that more than ten days have elapsed since said presentation; alleges that if plaintiff ever did any work for Olive Ahrens he has been fully paid for the same, and that in the will of Olive Ahrens it is stated that the reason she makes no special bequest to him is because she feels that she has provided for him as much as the situation demands. Otherwise...