Godburn v. Meserve

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROWN, Judge.
• Citation: Godburn v. Meserve, 130 Conn. 723, 37 A.2d 235 (Conn. 1944)
• Decision Date: 18 April 1944
• Parties: GODBURN et al. v. MESERVE et al.

130 Conn. 723

37 A.2d 235

GODBURN et al.

v.MESERVE et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 18, 1944.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Murphy, Judge.

Action by Lulu Godburn and another against George Meserve and another, executors of the estate of Carrie J. Wells, deceased, to recover damages for breach of a contract by defendants' decedent and for value of services rendered to her, which action was tried to a jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

Error, and new trial ordered.

J. Kenneth Bradley and Henry P. Lyons, both of Bridgeport, for appellants.

George N. Foster and C. David Munich, both of Bridgeport, for appellees.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

BROWN, Judge.

In this action based on an agreement by the plaintiffs to provide and care for the defendants' decedent in her house in Stratford in consideration of her promise to leave the property to them by will, the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs which, it was undisputed, was predicated upon the decedent's breach of an express agreement alleged in the first count. There was a second count based on quantum meruit. The defendants have appealed from the court's denial of their motion to set aside the verdict and from the judgment, assigning error in the court's charge to the jury. In the view which we take of the case it is necessary to consider only the claimed error in the court's denial of the motion.

For more than three years prior to February 21, 1936, the plaintiffs had lived as tenants of the decedent in a house owned by her in Stratford. As of the above date, the decedent, seventy-six years of age, was living alone in the house next door, which she also owned. On that date, the parties entered into an express written agreement which provided that for the remainder of the decedent's life they were to live together in her homestead, she occupying the front upstairs room and they furnishing her with board, heat, light and laundry, providing care for her in case of any minor ailments or sickness not requiring a nurse or hospital service, and paying ten dollars per month rent. It further provided that the plaintiffs' family was to be limited to themselves and daughter, and that the decedent was to leave the property to them by will at her death. The decedent made a will in accordance with the agreement and the plaintiffs occupied the house with the decedent and provided for her as stipulated until on or about August 5, 1941, when the plaintiffs moved out and did nothing further in performance of the contract. Thereupon the decedent revoked her will. She died May 21, 1942, at the age of eighty-three. During the first two years that the parties lived together their relations were generally harmonious and mutually agreeable, but thereafter increasing friction developed. Just before the plaintiffs moved out Mr. Godburn proposed a modification of the agreement whereby the decedent would have two rooms, get her own meals and do her own laundry, and the plaintiffs would make an increased cash payment monthly. The decedent refused to modify the agreement. These facts are undisputed.

The jury could reasonably have further found that the plaintiffs faithfully and fully performed their part of the contract up to the time they left; that the decedent objected to the plaintiffs' having their grandchildren and others stay in the home as their guests; that she objected to being left alone in the house at night and thus prevented the plaintiffs from going out or away on vacation; that she constantly found fault with many minor things around the house; that she, without reason, objected to the amount of water used by the plaintiffs which she had to pay for; that she, likewise without reason, demanded food other than that which the plaintiffs provided; constantly objected to the manner in which Mrs. Godburn cooked food and at times refused to eat it, developed a habit of tapping her foot on the floor while eating, and once when Mr. Godburn was seriously ill made a disturbance because her meal was not served on time; and that this course of conduct so disturbed the plaintiffs' home life that they became very nervous, and rendered it very disagreeable and difficult for them to continue to reside with her.

The contract was bilateral containing mutual and dependent covenants demanding of each of the parties readiness and willingness to perform. It therefore required, ‘as a condition of judicial enforcement or redress for breach at the complaint of either such...