Masters v. Jones

• Decision Date: 27 May 1902
• Docket Number: 19,842
• Citation: 64 N.E. 213,158 Ind. 647
• Parties: Masters, Executor, v. Jones et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

64 N.E. 213

158 Ind. 647

Masters, Executor, v. Jones et al

No. 19,842

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 27, 1902

From Clinton Circuit Court; J. V. Kent, Judge.

Claims by Mary E. H. Jones and sisters against the estate of Daniel G. Jones, deceased.From a judgment allowing the claims Thomas W. Masters, executor, appeals.Transferred to Supreme Court, under § 1337u Burns 1901.

Affirmed.

J. C Rogers and W. R. Moore, for appellant.

O. E Brumbaugh and J. Combs, for appellees.

OPINION

Jordan, J.

Appellees each in the lower court filed a separate claim against the estate of Daniel G. Jones for services rendered by the said claimants in and about the nursing of the said deceased, and for doing his washing, and for caring for him generally from the first day of April, 1894, to October 3, 1899.The executor, under the will, interposed a defense to each of these claims, and they were consolidated, and tried together before a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of each of the claimants, and over the motion of appellant for a new trialthe court rendered judgment on the verdict against the estate of the deceased for the amount assessed by the jury.Appellant, as the executor, appeals, and contends that under the facts no liability against the estate of the testator is shown to exist in favor of either of the appellees upon the claims in dispute.The questions discussed by the parties to this appeal mainly arise out of the facts established by the evidence on the trial in the lower court.The following appear to be the material facts: Appellees are each over the age of twenty-five years, and are the unmarried daughters of Daniel G. Jones, appellant's decedent.The latter formerly resided on a farm owned by him situated in Clinton county, Indiana.Some time in the year 1890he moved from his farm to the town of Rossville in said county.He was a widower, and his three unmarried daughters, prior to his becoming insane, resided with him as members of his family, doing the necessary housework.Some time prior to April, 1894, said Jones became insane, and on April 10, 1894, in a proper proceeding, he was, by the Clinton Circuit Court, adjudged to be a person of unsound mind, incapable of managing his estate, and George Smith was by the court appointed the guardian of his person and estate.Immediately after his qualification as such guardian, he took charge of the affairs of his ward, and, it being necessary for him as such guardian to procure some one to care for and attend to his ward, he, about April 15, 1894, had a conversation with appellees, who were living at the time at the home of their father, in regard to employing a nurse to care for and attend to the wants of their father.Appellees informed the guardian that they could care for and nurse their father cheaper than any one else.Thereupon the guardian directed them to nurse and take care of him, and to do the best they could in caring for him, as his estate was amply able to pay them for their services; and further directed them to keep an account of their time, and file their claims against the estate; and thereupon appellees agreed to nurse and take care of their father, and this, the evidence discloses, they did from that time until his death on October 3, 1899, with the exception of the time he was in the insane asylum, as hereinafter mentioned.On June 12, 1894, he was sent to an asylum for treatment, where he remained until July 4, 1895, when he was returned to his home an incurable lunatic, and appellees, under the arrangement with the guardian, resumed the nursing and caring for him.After the death of his ward the guardian made his final settlement with the court, leaving the claims of appellees for their services unsettled, and unpaid.The facts show that, during the time appellees were engaged in performing the services in question, their father at times was violent in his actions, filthy in his habits by reason of his unfortunate condition, and required constant care and attention.He frequently became violent at night, and hallooed loud enough to be heard some distance away.He was obscene and profane in the use of language, and it was necessary, at least a portion of the time, to keep him confined in a room.

Counsel for appellant insist that under these factsthis case must be ruled by the familiar doctrine recognized and asserted by numerous decisions of this court to the effect that, where persons related to each other by blood or marriage live together as members of a common family, there is no obligation to pay for services rendered on one hand, or for board, etc., furnished on the other in the absence of an express promise, unless the circumstances surrounding the case are of such a character or nature as to create, in the eye of the law, an implied promise.But the case at bar under the circumstances, does not fall within the prohibition of this rule.It is true that these claimants are shown to be the adult daughters of the decedent, and prior to his insanity they resided with him as members of his family, and were living at the home of...