Grubbs v. Hamby

• Decision Date: 12 January 1926
• Docket Number: 16916.
• Citation: 131 S.E. 189,34 Ga.App. 774
• Parties: GRUBBS v. HAMBY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

131 S.E. 189

34 Ga.App. 774

GRUBBS v. HAMBY.

No. 16916.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

January 12, 1926

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Ordinarily where one renders in behalf of another valuable services which are accepted by the latter, the law raises an implied promise to pay for same, although no formal or express contract to pay was made.

Where parties sustained toward each other the relation of parent and child, and services performed were in nature of care and attention bestowed by child on old and infirm parent, no presumption to pay for such services arises by operation of law.

To sustain recovery by child for care and attention of old and infirm parent, express contract for payment must affirmatively appear, or surrounding circumstances must indicate intention that compensation should be made; general expressions by parent that he wanted child compensated not being sufficient.

Error from Superior Court, Douglas County; F. A. Irwin, Judge.

Action by Mrs. M. E. Grubbs against J. R. Hamby, administrator. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

J. R. Hutcheson, of Douglasville, for plaintiff in error.

J. S. Edwards, of Buchanan, and Astor Merritt, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

BLOODWORTH J.

"Ordinarily, where one renders in behalf of another valuable services, which are accepted by the latter, the law raises in favor of the former an implied promise to pay for the same, although no formal or express contract to pay has been made. Where, however, the parties sustain toward each other the relation of parent and child, and the services performed are in the nature of care and attention bestowed by a son upon an old and infirm father, no such presumption arises by operation of law. In order, therefore, to sustain a recovery by the son for such services, it must affirmatively appear, either that they were rendered under an express contract that the son was to be paid for them, or the surrounding circumstances must plainly indicate that it was the intention of both parties that compensation should be made, and negative the idea that the services were performed merely because of that natural sense of duty, love, and affection arising out of this relation." Hudson v. Hudson, 90 Ga. 581 (1), 16 S.E. 349.

"In order to authorize a recovery by a son against the estate of his deceased father for services in the nature of care and...