Hill v. Hill

• Decision Date: 04 January 1910
• Docket Number: No. 6,851.,6,851.
• Citation: 90 N.E. 331,45 Ind.App. 99
• Parties: HILL v. HILL.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

45 Ind.App. 99

90 N.E. 331

HILL

v.HILL.

No. 6,851.

Appellate Court of Indiana.

Jan. 4, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dearborn County; W. H. Bainbridge, Special Judge.

Mary Elizabeth Hill filed a claim against the estate of her deceased father, and a verdict was rendered in her favor, and Minerva Hill, executrix, appeals. Affirmed.

Givan & Givan and McMullen & McMullens, for appellant. T. S. Cravens, Jno. L. Russe, and Jas. W. Noel, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee filed a claim against the estate of her deceased father, represented by appellant, executrix of the will, for services rendered as housekeeper for him during his life, averring that the services were rendered under an express agreement on his part to pay therefor. There was a jury trial had, resulting in a verdict in appellee's favor, and with the general verdict answers were returned by the jury to certain interrogatories propounded to them.

The questions presented by the appeal arise on the overruling of appellant's motion for judgment in her favor on the answers to the interrogatories and her motion for a new trial. As we understand appellant's contention in support of her motion for judgment on the answers to interrogatories, it is that such answers affirmatively show that appellee was, during all of the time the services charged for were rendered, a member of her father's family, and therefore there could be no legal right to recover for the services rendered, even thought an express contract to pay for them was shown. This is not the law. Where parties are living together as members of the same family, and sustain to each other the relation of parent and child, there may be a liability to pay for services on the one hand, or for board and lodging on the other, if there be an express contract so to do. Or, if, notwithstanding such relationship, the services were rendered, or the board and shelter furnished, under such circumstances as show that there was a purpose on one hand to pay therefor, and an expectation on the other that it would be paid for. The answers to interrogatories are not in conflict with the general verdict. They affirmatively show that the services were rendered under a contract between the parties by which appellee was to be paid therefor.

A vast number of questions are raised and discussed in appellant's brief on the action of the court below in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. As to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we have carefully examined the record, and find no reversible error in the action of the court in ruling upon the evidence. The reason for a new trial most earnestly pressed...