Hasty v. Hasty, 4 Div. 763
| Decision Date | 17 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 763 |
| Citation | 260 Ala. 90,69 So.2d 282 |
| Parties | HASTY et al. v. HASTY. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Hubert Farmer and J. N. Mullins, Dothan, for appellants.
H. K. & J. F. Martin, Dothan and Halstead & Whiddon, Headland, for appellee.
The following charges were refused to contestants:
5. 'I charge you gentlemen of the Jury that the courts regard with suspicion and disfavor claims brought against the estate of a decedent such as brought by the claimant, Mrs. Minnie Hasty in this case, and before you would be justified in finding for her in any amount, you must be reasonably satisfied from the evidence that she rendered services of value to the decedent, and that at the time such services were rendered there was an expectation on the part of Mrs. T. J. Hasty to pay for the same, and also, an expectation at the time such services were rendered by Mrs. Minnie Hasty to receive payment.'
6. 'The court charges the jury that if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that there was an expectation on the part of Mrs. T. J. Hasty to pay to Mrs. Minnie Hasty for any services rendered by her to the decedent at the time such services may have been rendered and that there was like expectation on the part of Mrs. Minnie Hasty to receive payment for such services, and you further find that Mrs. Minnie Hasty has already received reasonable compensation for such services, then you cannot find for her on her claim in this case.'
This is a case in which a claim was sought to be established against the estate of a decedent. On July 2, 1952, Minnie Hasty (appellee) was appointed administratrix of the estate of Mrs. T. J. Hasty, deceased, by the Probate Court of Henry County. As an individual Minnie Hasty then filed her claim for personal services rendered to the decedent during the years 1945 through 1951, inclusive, and also through three months of the year 1952. Administration of the estate was removed to the Circuit Court of Henry County, in Equity. Contest of the claim was filed by A. L. Hasty and R. G. Hasty (appellants), two of the heirs at law of Mrs. T. J. Hasty, deceased. An administrator ad litem was appointed to represent the estate on the trial of the contest. There was a trial of the contest before a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the claimant in the sum of $1,850. Hence this appeal.
Assignments of error are based (1) on the refusal of the affirmative charge, which was requested in writing by the contestants, and (2) the rulings of the court, respectively, on other written charges to which we shall later refer.
At the time of her death on March 28, 1952, Mrs. T. J. Hasty was 82 years of age. Tendencies of the evidence also showed the following: She weighed around 65 to 70 pounds and was feeble and almost blind. She was not able to wait on herself and did not have control of her bodily actions all of the time. The decedent was not able to look after her personal needs from the year 1945 until the time of her death. Minnie Hasty (appellee) was the only person to administer to the decedent's needs and requirements from 1945 until the time of her death in 1952. The acts performed by Minnie Hasty for the decedent were necessary and essential to her welfare and maintenance. Minnie Hasty cooked for her, carried her meals to her, bathed her, helped her to dress and undress, helped her in and out of bed and in general waited on and took care of her during the period of time prior to her death which has been set forth. The physical condition of Mrs. T. J. Hasty steadily grew worse and her personal requirements increased from the year 1945 until her death in 1952. The claim sued on is for these services and tendencies of the evidence showed that the services were worth from $25 to $30 per month during the first years of service and from $30 to $50 per month in the subsequent years prior to the death of Mrs. Hasty. No one else waited on or served the decedent other than Minnie Hasty, except for a few short periods of time during which Minnie Hasty was required to leave the decedent as for example because of the illness of her husband, who had been removed to a hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.
Various neighbors, who knew the decedent and often visited in the home where the decedent lived and where Minnie Hasty served decedent, testified to the foregoing situation. Each of them testified to statements made by Mrs. T. J. Hasty during this period, at least one of which was in the presence of Minnie Hasty. We set out these expressions as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Weldon
...of trial court in refusing the charge must be affirmed. Aircraft Sales & Service v. Gantt, 255 Ala. 508, 52 So.2d 388; Hasty v. Hasty, 260 Ala. 90, 69 So.2d 282; Adams v. Queen Insurance Co. of America, 264 Ala. 572, 88 So.2d The evidence in this case shows beyond peradventure that Shirley ......
-
Foodtown Stores, Inc. v. Patterson
...& Pacific Tea Co. v. Bennett, 267 Ala. 538, 103 So.2d 177; Adams v. Queen Ins. Co. of America, 264 Ala. 572, 88 So.2d 331; Hasty v. Hasty, 260 Ala. 90, 69 So.2d 282; Sullivan v. Alabama Power Co., 246 Ala. 262, 20 So.2d The appellant next contends that the appellees did not prove that the m......
-
Adams v. Queen Ins. Co. of America
...drawn adverse to the party who requested the charge, the action of the trial court in refusing the charge must be affirmed. Hasty v. Hasty, 260 Ala. 90, 69 So.2d 282; Aircraft Sales & Service v. Gantt, 255 Ala. 508, 52 So.2d The evidence for the plaintiff is to the effect that he purchased ......
-
S.H. Kress & Co. v. Thompson
...court's action in refusing the charge must be affirmed. Adams v. Queen Ins. Co. of America, 264 Ala. 572, 88 So.2d 331; Hasty v. Hasty, 260 Ala. 90, 69 So.2d 282; Aircraft Sales & Service v. Gantt, 255 Ala. 508, 52 So.2d Several Alabama cases have been concerned with the problem presented o......