Hartley v. Hartley's Estate

• Decision Date: 08 April 1913
• Citation: 155 S.W. 1099,173 Mo. App. 18
• Parties: HARTLEY et al. v. HARTLEY'S ESTATE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

155 S.W. 1099

173 Mo. App. 18

HARTLEY et al. v. HARTLEY'S ESTATE.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 8, 1913.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1913.

1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 221) — CLAIMS — SERVICES BY CHILDREN — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

Evidence held to support a finding of an actual contract between a parent and adult children, binding him to pay them for services rendered him.

2. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 221) — CLAIMS — SERVICES BY CHILDREN — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

Though loose declarations to neighbors and friends, indicative of mere affection or gratitude on the part of a parent, are not sufficient to authorize a finding of an intention to pay for services rendered him by adult children, yet where there is coupled with them a statement of the parent, to the effect that he desires the children rendering the services to be paid therefor, a finding of intention to do so may be inferred.

3. INSANE PERSONS (§ 75) — CONTRACTS.

A contract binding an insane person to pay the reasonable value of actual necessaries furnished him while insane is implied in law, provided the parties furnishing the necessaries intended to charge therefor at the time.

4. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 227) — ESTABLISHMENT OF CLAIMS — INCONSISTENT DEMANDS.

A demand by an adult child for compensation for services rendered a deceased parent, based on an actual contract between the parties, binding the parent to pay for the services rendered, and a demand by the child, based on the theory of a contract implied by law, binding the parent to pay for services rendered him while insane, are not inconsistent; for whether the contract established be actual or implied the essential cause of action is established by showing either and its breach.

5. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 221) — CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE — SERVICES — PRESUMPTIONS.

Where one renders services to another, who is a stranger, and who receives the services, the law presumes that he shall be compensated therefor; but where close family relation appears, such as parent and child, the presumption, is that the services are gratuitous.

6. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 221) — CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE — SERVICES — PRESUMPTIONS.

The presumption that services rendered by an adult child to a parent are gratuitous affects solely the burden of proof, and casts the burden of repelling the presumption on the child suing for compensation.

7. TRIAL (§ 295) — INSTRUCTIONS — CONSTRUCTION TOGETHER.

Where, in an action by a child to establish a claim against her father's estate for services rendered him, the court in its instructions for defendant correctly charged that the presumption was that the services were gratuitous, an instruction for plaintiff, authorizing a recovery on the finding of an actual contract, was not objectionable for omitting any reference to the presumption, since the instructions must be read together to determine their correctness.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; James D. Barnett, Judge.

Action by Sallie Hartley and another against the Estate of William Hartley, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Robertson & Robertson, of Mexico, Mo., for appellant. Fry & Rodgers, of Mexico, Mo., for respondents.

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit against decedent's estate for the reasonable value of services rendered through caring for him during the last years of his life. Plaintiffs recovered, and defendant prosecutes the appeal.

Plaintiffs, maiden ladies, each aged over 40, are the daughters of William Hartley who died in March, 1910, at the age of 83 years. It appears that the two plaintiffs resided together with their father and mother on his farm of 80 acres as members of the same family until the mother died in March, 1904. At that time William Hartley, plaintiffs' father, was 77 years of age and in poor physical health and probably non compos mentis as well. Plaintiffs continued as before in the father's home and cared for him with great tenderness and sympathy. The evidence tends with great force to show that William Hartley was, during all of these years, not only sick and infirm and physically incapacitated, but mentally so as well. Indeed, the evidence tends to prove that he was violently insane at times, while at other times he seemed to be rational, but practically all of the time non compos. In this situation decedent, of course, required constant care and attention, and it appears that his condition required considerable washing of clothing, bedclothing, etc. The two plaintiffs, his daughters, both of whom, as said before, were over 40 years of age, rendered all of these services, to the end of protecting their father and making him comfortable until he died in March, 1910, at the age of 83 years. It appears plaintiffs kept house for their father, did all of the cooking and washing and chores about the place, and waited upon him, whether in bed or out, and constantly attended his every want. Under the instructions the jury found the issues for plaintiffs as though, first, they either rendered the services intending at the time to charge therefor, and that in such circumstances they were entitled to recover, provided their father was insane during all the time involved, on the theory that the law implies a contract against an insane person for actual necessaries furnished him; or, second, that plaintiffs rendered the services intending at the time to charge therefor, and their father intended to pay them the reasonable value for such services. All of the evidence reveals that the services rendered were valuable in character and actually necessary in the condition of the aged parent, and, as we understand it, these propositions of fact are not controverted. However, that may be, the jury were required to and did expressly find these facts to be true.

But it is urged the evidence is wholly insufficient to authorize a finding of an intention to pay the reasonable value therefor on the part of the decedent. Of course, plaintiffs were not permitted to testify in their own behalf because of the statute declaring their incompetency. But there are some expressions of the decedent, made during his lifetime, in evidence and much in the facts and circumstances of the case tending to prove that plaintiffs intended to charge and their father intended to pay, provided he was competent to...