Ingram v. Basye

• Decision Date: 21 October 1913
• Parties: INGRAM v. BASYE et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

135 P. 883

67 Or. 257

INGRAM v. BASYE et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

October 21, 1913

Department 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; Percy R. Kelly, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Ingram against Alexander Basye and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

This is an action to recover judgment in the sum of $3,000 for the rendition of personal services. Following the statement that plaintiff is of the age of 36 years and that defendants are husband and wife, the complaint reads that from the time of infancy until the 1st of July, 1910, plaintiff had resided with defendants and has since attaining the age of 14 years rendered services for defendants as a domestic and in the capacity of a farm laborer, receiving naught therefore, save scant clothing, board, and lodging; that defendants subjected plaintiff to lead a life of illiteracy and unremitting toil and hardships, compelling her to render services of the most menial kind and laborious description and to a life of slavery until certain persons, actuated by motives of humanity, instituted appropriate proceedings to release plaintiff from bondage. In conclusion is the allegation that the reasonable value of the services rendered during the period of 22 years anterior to the 1st day of July, 1910, is $3,000.

Defendants in their answer deny the material portions of the complaint and declare as a separate defense that since plaintiff was of the age of two years she has resided with defendants as their daughter and as a member of their family, being treated and received as such; that when defendants received plaintiff into their home her father was dead and her mother was a pauper unable to support and care for plaintiff. Continuing defendants assert that they caused plaintiff to attend the public schools regularly from the time of schooling age until the age of 18 years; that during the time plaintiff resided with defendants they treated plaintiff with kindness and consideration, requiring the performance of such services as are usually done by a daughter whose parents are farmers that plaintiff appeared satisfied with her lot until about July 1, 1910, when certain enemies of defendants caused plaintiff forcibly to be taken from the home of defendants that plaintiff from childhood suffered from a defective mind being more of a burden than of a benefit to defendants; and that the cost of maintaining and educating plaintiff far exceeded the value of her services.

In her rejoinder, plaintiff declared the hardships which she endured and the ill treatment she received while residing with defendants rendered her dull and to a degree mentally weak and that, while in the tender years of life, defendant Alex. Basye criminally assaulted plaintiff and continued such conduct thereafter until her removal from defendants' custody by citizens acting in plaintiff's behalf.

At the conclusion of the testimony offered by plaintiff in proof of her demand, the trial court, in response to a motion of defendants' counsel, directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove an express contract for services rendered or a condition from which a contract by implication might arise.

Thos Brown, of Salem (Carson & Brown, of Salem, on the brief), for appellant.

John Bayne, of Salem (B.F. Swope, of Independence, and L.D. Brown, of Dallas, on the brief), for respondents.

McNARY, J. (after stating the facts as above).

From the record we gather that plaintiff entered the home of defendants during the infantile period of her life and there remained until the arrival of her thirty-sixth year; that no blood nor marriage relation existed between the parties, plaintiff and defendants, outside the reservation that plaintiff is a second cousin of defendant Louisa Basye; that no express contract for compensation was ever made on the one side for wages or on the other side for support; that plaintiff's claim for pay rests upon an implied contract.

A contract to pay is presumed from the acceptance of beneficial labor, unless the relationship of the parties is such as to forbid the presumption. Indeed, the law is well settled that, where the person who rendered and the person who received the services were not related either by blood or marriage, the implication of a promise to pay compensation will, as a general rule, be negatived, if it appears that at the time the services were rendered there existed between them a family relationship, the incidents of which are essentially similar to those which are ordinarily associated with such relationship when it exists between kinsfolk. Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 28 P. 135; Bennett v. Stephens, 8 Or. 444; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo.App. 165, 86 S.W. 719; Williams v. Hutchinson, 3 N.Y. 312, 53 Am.Dec. 301.

To differentiate the law as applied to relatives and the rulé as affecting strangers living together as a family is to observe that no...