Hoyle v. Smith

• Citation: 74 So. 611,113 Miss. 729
• Decision Date: 02 April 1917
• Docket Number: 18979
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: HOYLE ET AL v. SMITH ET AL

74 So. 611

113 Miss. 729

HOYLE ET AL v. SMITH ET AL

No. 18979

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 2, 1917

Division B

APPEAL from the chancery court of Itawamba county, HON. T. L. LAMB Chancellor.

In the matter of the allowance of certain claims probated by Mrs Elminah Smith against the estate of her deceased sister. From a decree awarding partial relief, H. B. Hoyle and others appeal, and Mrs. Smith cross-appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

W. D. & J. R. Anderson, for appellant.

All the testimony on the subject shows that there was no contract between Mrs. Smith and Miss Hoyle either express or implied by which Miss Hoyle had agreed to pay Mrs. Smith for her services and care. The testimony shows that Mrs. Smith rendered whatever services she did perform out of love for her sister and without any understanding or expectation of receiving pay. In speaking of this character of cases or claims in Bell v. Oats, 97 Miss. 790, 53 So. 491, our court used this language in part: "Claims of the character of the one here involved brought up for the first time after the death of the decedent, are looked upon by the courts with disfavor; in order to establish one, the evidence must clearly establish a contract express or implied between claimant and decedent providing therefor."

In 18 Cyc. page 409, in speaking of the allowance of claims for personal services rendered a decedent this language is used.

"But compensation cannot be allowed where such services were performed without any claim for payment during decedent's lifetime, or any expectation of being paid specificially therefor, and without any express or implied promise of remuneration, even though their performance may have been prompted by the hope of obtaining a gift or legacy, which has not been fulfilled."

In 16 Cyc., page 412, in speaking of claims rendered a deceased person by members of their family under obligation to support them, they used this language in part: "The courts regard with suspicion and disfavor claims brought against decedent's estate for personal services rendered by relatives, especially where the latter are members of his immediate family or household, as the presumption is such services, between persons occupying such relations, are intended to gratuitous, hence claims against the estate of a decedent made by a near relative for personal services required stronger proof to establish than ordinary claims by strangers. "

We submit that Mrs. Smith never expected any remuneration. Take the testimony as to the statements made by Miss Hoyle and it means this only: That she wanted her sister to have what she left in the way of property. This was only an expression, indicating a purpose or desire to make a will to that effect. The will was never made.

Wiley H. Clifton, for appellee.

The general rule of law is that for services rendered or for maintenance and support provided, the party accepting the support and services must pay a reasonable price for the same to the extent of the benefits received.

An exception to this rule is where the family relation exists between parties so situated as to be mutually dependent one upon the other. This exception rests on the idea or principle that both are able to and do assist in the maintenance and support of the family of which they are members, and not on kinship, except in the case of parent and child where there is a legal obligation upon each to support the other when the necessity of the case requires it. In all other cases proof of the rendition and acceptance of the service and support provided, is sufficient to charge the estate, even where there has been no demand for the payment during the life of the beneficiary, or no express promise to pay for the benefit received. 18 Cyc. p. 409, note 51; Wence v. Wykeef, Adm., 3 N.W. 685; Disbrew v. Durand, 24 A. (N. J.) 545; Wallace v. Schaub, 32 A. 324; Hutchinson v. Trucker, 15 So. 132.

An understanding to provide compensation for services and support in the beneficiary's will, or by legacy, or through a gift of a piece of land, when not carried out, may be made the foundation of an action against the estate for value of the services and support; and on a quantum meruit the value of the land would be the measure of the recovery. 18 Cyc. p. 411.

"Where services are rendered in consideration of a promise to compensate for the same by a conveyance of land, and the promiser dies without making the conveyance, the value of the services may be recovered by an action against his personal representative." 18 Cyc. Tp. 415, note 68; In Re Williams Estate, 64 N.W. 490.

In this state a sister is under no more obligation to support and nurture another sister any more than nephews and nieces would be. Then since our statute fixes a lien on the lands of the decedents for payment of debts, nephews and nieces could not take their distributive share in this land without contributing their pro rata share to the support and maintenance of the decedent. In re Gindry Succession, 4 So. (La.) 893; Savings Inst. v. Tart, 81 Miss. 276, 32 So. 15.

OPINION

STEVENS, J.

Appellants prosecute this appeal from a decree allowing a portion of certain claims probated by Mrs. Elminah Smith against the estate of her deceased sister, Miss M. E. Hoyle. In the course of the administration of the Hoyle estate, Mrs. Smith probated one claim for nine hundred and thirty dollars, nine hundred dollars of which was for nursing, care, and attention given the decedent during the last three years of her life and thirty dollars was for burial expenses. There was another account probated for one hundred dollars, represented to be the amount which the decedent was due W. G. Orr on a joint obligation of Mrs. Smith and her sister, the decedent. Appellee Mrs. Smith also...