In re Kuka's Estate

• Decision Date: 08 February 1927
• Citation: 252 P. 947,120 Or. 542
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court
• Parties: IN RE KUKAS' ESTATE. v. JOHNSON. LANE

252 P. 947

120 Or. 542

IN RE KUKAS' ESTATE.

LANE v. JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

February 8, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court, Columbia County; J. A. Eakin, Judge.

Action by Otto Lane against William F Johnson, administrator of the estate of Hilda Maria Kukas, deceased, for allowance of a claim. From a judgment of the probate court rejecting the claim, claimant appealed to the circuit court, where judgment was rendered in his favor, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John L Foote, of St. Helens, and Clarence H. Gilbert, of Portland for appellant.

Glen R Metsker, of St. Helens, for respondent.

BEAN J.

It appears from the record that the claimant, Otto Lane presented a claim to the administrator of the estate of Hilda Maria Kukas, deceased, in the sum of $3,700, for work and services performed for said decedent on her farm in Columbia county, Or., between July 19, 1919, and October 15, 1922, a total of 39 months, at her request, and of the reasonable value of $100 per month, which consisted of general farm work and the management and control of the farm and personal property of the decedent, and care and attention rendered her during her last sickness; that only $200 has been paid therefor, leaving a balance due claimant of $3,700. The claim was duly verified. The administrator rejected the claim on December 2, 1922.

The claim was then presented to the county court for allowance. After a hearing of the matter, the probate court rendered a judgment rejecting the claim. Thereafter an appeal from such judgment was taken by claimant to the circuit court, where the cause was tried before a jury resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of claimant in the sum of $3,700. Defendant appeals.

The administrator contends that the testimony of the claimant was not sufficiently corroborated by evidence other than his own, as provided by statute, and therefore his motion for a directed verdict should have been granted.

Section 1241, Or. L., provides, among other things, that in such cases no claim which shall have been rejected by the executor or administrator shall be allowed by any court, referee, or jury, except upon some competent or satisfactory evidence other than the testimony of the claimant. The evidence of decedent's neighbors, several of whom were witnesses for claimant upon the trial, tended to show that the services were performed by respondent as claimed, and that they were reasonably worth the sum of $100 per month.

Decedent's long illness and frequent and long-continued absence from the place for treatment rendered it necessary for claimant to take complete charge of the dairy and farm, market the products, and collect the proceeds, which he turned over to decedent. In addition he prepared his own meals and assisted in the care of decedent. During the fishing season he operated decedent's boat and fishing gears, working very long days, and turned the proceeds over to decedent. During the time of respondent's labor the dairy herd was doubled. Notwithstanding decedent's personal expenses were great, she left $1,559.20 on deposit in the bank.

There was competent and satisfactory evidence of respondent's claim other than his own testimony. It is conceded by appellant that the conditions of the statute were met as to the performance of the service, and as to their reasonable value.

Appellant's motion for a directed verdict is based upon the theory that the claimant's testimony that the claim had not been paid must be corroborated under the statute. This court has decided adversely to appellant's contention.

In Re Banzer's Estate, 106 Or. 654 at page 658, 213 P 406, 408, three claims against the estate which had been rejected by the administratrix were involved. In regard to two of the...