Matheson v. Gullickson

• Decision Date: 25 October 1946
• Docket Number: No. 34259.,34259.
• Citation: 222 Minn. 369,24 N.W.2d 704
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: MATHESON v. GULLICKSON et al.

24 N.W.2d 704

222 Minn. 369

MATHESON v. GULLICKSON et al.

No. 34259.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

October 25, 1946.

Appeal from District Court, Fillmore County; Martin A. Nelson, Judge.

Action by Jacob Matheson against George C. Gullickson, as administrator with will annexed of estate of Anton Sandsness, and others, for specific performance of oral contract to bequeath property to plaintiff. From an order overruling a demurrer to the amended complaint, the defendants appeal.

Order affirmed.

Christensen & Ronken, of Rochester, for appellants.

L. L. Duxbury, of Caledonia, and Larson & Gartner, of Preston, for respondent.

MATSON, Justice.

Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the amended complaint in an action for specific performance of an oral contract with Anton Sandsness (decedent) in his lifetime. The trial court certified that the question presented is important and doubtful.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff, upon his arrival as an immigrant from Norway in 1915, at the age of 20 years, commenced to work for Anton Sandsness on his farm. This employment continued until January 1, 1920, when plaintiff decided to return to Norway to get married and there make his future home. Anton and his wife, Hannah, were then 53 and 58 years of age respectively and childless. They had developed a strong affection for plaintiff, and in order to induce him not to return to Norway they entered into an oral contract with him whereby they promised that— "if he would live and make his home with them as long as they lived and treat them as his father and mother and conduct himself toward them as a dutiful son and permit them to have and enjoy his companionship and affection in their home and personally care for them in sickness and in health and help them with their work and devote himself to and serve them as they might require as long as either of them should live, they, * * * would leave to the plaintiff all of their estates as well as all additions thereto to the times of their death." It was understood and anticipated that it would be necessary for plaintiff to remain unmarried as long as either of them lived. Plaintiff abandoned his plan to return to Norway and commenced performance as agreed. From that day forward, plaintiff lived continuously with Anton and Hannah as a member of their family, treated them as his father and mother, conducted himself as a dutiful son, permitted them to have and enjoy his companionship and affection in their home, personally cared for them in sickness and in health, and helped them with their work, including housework, the preparation and service of meals, laundry, nursing, and farm work of all kinds. He drove them to church and to other places as they desired, kept them company, otherwise served them according to their wishes, and conferred on them his true affection by deeds and words. With the passage of years the mutual bonds of affection became stronger. At the beginning of the contract, Anton and his wife owned estates worth approximately $10,000. At the time of Anton's death on February 26, 1945, his estate was appraised at $20,000, and that of Mrs. Sandsness amounted to $10,000. After making said contract and in reliance thereon, plaintiff turned over to Anton large sums of money derived from the sale of his own property and also contributed very substantially by his labors to increasing the estates.

Anton left a last will and testament dated October 30, 1944, now admitted to probate, whereby he bequeathed and devised his entire estate to Hannah, his wife, for life (with the right to use as much of the income and the body of said estate as she might desire), one-half of the remainder thereof upon her death to the child or children of any deceased sister of the testator by right of representation, and the remaining one-half to the brothers and sisters of Hannah, share and share alike, and to the child or children of any deceased brother or sister by right of representation. Hannah gave her written consent to the foregoing will at the time of its execution. No provision was made for plaintiff, and at no time had he received any compensation or wages for his work and services throughout the years. Since the death of Anton, plaintiff has continued to live in the family home to care for Hannah and has otherwise continued to perform his contractual duties with the same fidelity as before.

1. A demurrer admits all well-pleaded allegations of material fact and all legal and factual inferences fairly and reasonably to be drawn therefrom as distinguished from bare conclusions or assertions of law. On general demurrer a pleading is to be construed liberally in support of its sufficiency. Smithers v. Bell, 183 Minn. 608, 237 N.W. 420; 2 Pirsig's Dunnell, Minn.Pleading, §§ 1622 and 1633; 5 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. §§ 7542 and 7724.

2. The oral contract falls within the statute of frauds and is void (Minn. St.1945, and M.S.A. §§ 513.01 and 513.04) unless removed from its purview by sufficient part performance of a nature entitling plaintiff to specific performance. Minn.St.1945, and M.S.A. § 513.06; 6 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 10207.

Clearly, "one may contract with another to give him his property at his death; and in a proper case, if he fails to do so an action in the nature of one for specific performance may be maintained, and title to the property be vested in the promisee or charged with a trust in his favor." (Italics supplied.) Simonson v. Moseley, 183 Minn. 525, 526, 237 N.W. 413, 414.

See, Svanburg v. Fosseen, 75 Minn. 350, 78 N.W. 4, 43 L.R.A. 427, 74 Am.St.Rep. 490; 5 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 8789a, and 6 Id. § 10207, and cases therein cited.

3. What performance justifies equitable relief is to be determined under the holdings of this court which are summarized in 5 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 8789a, as follows:

"* * * To warrant specific performance of an oral contract to give property by will, the contract must be reasonable and satisfactorily established, and must have been performed to such extent and in such manner that the beneficiary cannot be properly compensated in damages. Assuming a peculiar personal and domestic relation as a member of the family of the promisor, pursuant to the contract, and giving him the society and services incident to such relation, and of a kind and character, the value of which is not measurable in money, is sufficient to justify specific performance; but services not of such peculiar character, and for which reasonable compensation can be made in money, are not sufficient to justify such relief."

And again in 6 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 10207:

"* * * The remedy for a breach of such a contract depends upon the facts of the particular case, and may be either at law for damages or in equity for specific performance, or in presenting a claim to the probate court. * * * If the consideration for the contract is labor and services which may be estimated, and their value liquidated in money, so as reasonably to make the promisee whole, specific performance will not be decreed. But if the consideration for the contract is that the promisee shall assume a peculiar and domestic relation to the promisor, and render him services of such a peculiar character that it is practically impossible to estimate their value by any pecuniary standard, specific performance will be decreed."¹

The general principles which govern are well established. Their application, however, is difficult and involves a careful consideration of the total effect of the combination of facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. In doing equity, a common factual denominator for the reconciliation of all cases is out of the question. Similar facts produce and reflect different equitable considerations according to the varied settings in which they are found.

Applying these principles to the instant case, we find many elements of service for which plaintiff might be adequately compensated in damages and which could provide no basis for specific performance. Plaintiff, however, who was a stranger to Sandsness and his wife and under no filial or other obligation to either of them,² pursuant to the oral contract, gave up his own personal prospects in life and throughout the years actually assumed a peculiar personal and domestic relation as an affectionate and loyal son in the Sandsness family. As a member of the household, he gave to this childless couple filial devotion, companionship, society, and services to a degree and in a manner not subject to pecuniary valuation. His services in this respect were of such a peculiar character as to justify relief through specific performance.

4. "Specific enforcement of a contract may be refused if

(a) the consideration for it is grossly inadequate or its terms are otherwise unfair, or

(b) its enforcement will cause unreasonable or disproportionate hardship or loss to the defendant or to third persons, or

(c) it was induced by some sharp practice, misrepresentation, or mistake." Restatement, Contracts, § 367.

Here, plaintiff, by giving his services over a period of approximately 25 years and surrendering his personal prospects during the best years of his life, has indeed provided adequate consideration. The oral contract was obtained by fair and honorable means, and its enforcement will bring justice to the plaintiff without visiting any unreasonable or disproportionate loss or hardship upon any person.

Many decisions have been cited to sustain appellants' contentions. These decisions, though correct in principle, involved different factual combinations and are easily distinguished.³

5. The contract was not rendered void by reason of the understanding that it would be necessary for plaintiff to remain unmarried. The implied agreement to remain single was merely incidental to an otherwise valid and reasonable contract for personal services and did not constitute a general restraint upon marriage.

"A bargain not to...