Mathews v. McCorkle
| Citation | 141 S.E.2d 597,111 Ga.App. 310 |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 40978,40978,3 |
| Parties | Lura C. MATHEWS et al. v. Mary C. McCORKLE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
2. The trial court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial on the general grounds as the pleadings and the evidence did not authorize the verdict.
3, 4, 5. The trial court did not err in the judgments on the matters considered in these divisions of the opinion.
This suit was brought against an estate by a daughter of the deceased seeking compensation for services rendered over a certain period of time by the plaintiff to her aged mother.
The deceased mother owned a life estate in a 405 acre farm including a house in Taylor County. On marriage of the plaintiff and her husband in 1930, the couple resided with the mother until the latter's death at the age of 93. For all times material to this suit the plaintiff's husband rented the farm from his mother-in-law, the deceased, for an annual rental of $300.
On the trial of the case there was evidence that the daughter rendered services to her mother of a character usually required by an old, aged and infirm person including those involving many unpleasantries. These services were performed by the plaintiff personally and by her through her employees as her agents.
Following the trial of the case a verdict was returned by the jury in plaintiff's favor for the full amount sued for. Judgment was entered accordingly.
The defendants except to the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, to the judgment overruling their motion for new trial, and to the overruling of certain of their special demurrers.
Foley, Chappell, Young, Hollis & Schloth, B. H. Chappell, Columbus, H. Thad Crawley, Butler, for plaintiff in error.
Dan S. Beeland, Columbus, Garland T. Byrd, Butler, for defendant in error.
1. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict since the evidence as a whole was sufficient to have authorized a verdict for the plaintiff in some amount. In that status of the evidence in would have been erroneous for the trial court to have directed a verdict for the defendant. Daniel v. Weeks, 217 Ga. 388, 396, 122 S.E.2d 564(1); Moate v. H. L. Green Co., 95 Ga.App. 493, 499, 98 S.E.2d 185(1).
2. The trial court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial on the general grounds. In her petition the plaintiff prayed for recovery in the amount of $7,200. The jury rendered its verdict for the full amount sued for. The evidence coupled with the pleadings clearly demanded a finding on the jury's part that the plaintiff, if entitled to recover anything, was not entitled to recover the full amount for which she sued.
In her bill of particulars showing the total amount of $7,200 for which she sued, the plaintiff alleged amounts owing to her by the estate for various services rendered to the deceased. On the trial the evidence disclosed that some of the services were rendered by the plaintiff's agents but that those agents in addition to serving the deceased performed other activities about the premises which were not related to services for the deceased. The proof showed the total remuneration paid the agents for all of their services. In many areas the evidence fell far short of proving either the value of the services actually rendered by the agents to the deceased or the percentage of the agents' total time used in waiting on the deceased from which reasonable inferences could be drawn by the jury of the value of the services rendered the deceased.
In addition the plaintiff included in her bill of particulars a claim for some services for which as a matter of law she was not entitled to recover. Included in the bill are the following items: ; ; 'Night help, $75.00 per month $900.00'; These specific items are explained in the plaintiff's amendment to her petition in the following language Mrs. Mary C. McCorkle is the plaintiff and Mrs. W. T. Cochran was her mother. Mrs. Cochran is now deceased and it is for services rendered her that Mrs. McCorkle sues.
In order to authorize a recovery by a child against the estate of her deceased mother for services in the nature of care and attention to the latter while old and infirm, it must affirmatively appear either that the services were rendered under an express contract that the child was to be paid for them, or the surrounding circumstances must plainly indicate that it was the intention of both parties that compensation should be made, and negative the idea that the services were performed merely because of that natural sense...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Johnson v. State, 41211
-
Freeman v. Phillips
...as herein set forth. See Freeman v. Collier, 204 Ga. 329(2), 50 S.E.2d 61; Hurst v. Lane, 105 Ga. 506, 31 S.E. 135; Mathews v. McCorkle, 111 Ga.App. 310(1), 141 S.E.2d 597; Guyton v. Young, 84 Ga.App. 155(5), 65 S.E.2d 858; Humphries v. Miller, 66 Ga.App. 871(1), 19 S.E.2d 321; Tatum v. Mos......
-
Cowsert v. Nunnally, 41788
...Ga. 521, 17 S.E. 847; Grubbs v. Hamby, 34 Ga.App. 774, 131 S.E. 189; McElroy v. Lambert, 56 Ga.App. 127, 192 S.E. 258; Matthews v. McCorkle, 111 Ga.App. 310, 141 S.E. 597. In the present case, as in the cases cited above where a recovery for services was held authorized, there was presented......
-
Brooks v. Williams, 47449
...of her child while she was in the hospital. There is no presumption of an implied promise to pay for such services. Mathews v. McCorkle, 111 Ga.App. 310(2), 141 S.E.2d 597. There must have been an intention on the part of all of them that payment would be made, and it does not appear. As to......