Mcisaac v. Adams
| Decision Date | 03 January 1906 |
| Citation | 76 N.E. 654,190 Mass. 117 |
| Parties | McISAAC v. ADAMS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
James
R. Murphy, for plaintiff.
Henry W. Hardy, for defendant.
The plaintiff is an attorney at law, and he brings this action against the defendant, a minor, to recover on a quantum meruit for professional services. The defendant is the grandnephew of Julius Adams, who died unmarried and without issue, leaving a will by which he disinherited his brother Durward Adams, the grandfather of the defendant. The plaintiff was employed by Durward Adams and others interested in the estate of Julius Adams, and he appeared for them in the probate court, and afterwards in the Supreme Judicial Court and rendered services in these courts, and in making a compromise by which there was a modification of the will which was adopted in the settlement of the estate. He also assumed to represent the defendant, and to render services to him as well as the others. It is not contended that he was employed by the defendant in person, for he testified at the trial that he had never seen the defendant. During a considerable part of this time the defendant had a probate guardian, and for a while he had also a guardian ad litem. The plaintiff acted independently of the guardian ad litem, and, if we are to consider facts which appear in Elder v. Adams, 180 Mass. 303, 62 N.E. 373, to which the plaintiff referred in his testimony, it would seem that during a part of the time he acted adversely to this guardian. The plaintiff testified that the probate guardian, who is the grandmother of the defendant, employed him for herself and for her son, Reginald Adams, of whom she was guardian, and who became 21 years of age about that time, and employed the plaintiff for himself, and that he was acting generally for different members of the family, and representing the whole family, but he did not recall any conversation or instructions in regard to the defendant. The presiding justice rightly found that the probate guardian made no contract to bind herself or the ward's estate for services to the ward. The plaintiff is, therefore, in the position of a volunteer, acting at the suggestion of relatives of the defendant. In such cases, ordinarily, there can be no recovery. Jones v. Woods, 76 Pa. 408; Westmoreland v. Martin, 24 S.C. 238.
In the aspect of the case most favorable to the plaintiff he has no standing, unless the services were necessaries. The plaintiff's testimony was the only evidence introduced at the trial, and we are of opinion that there is nothing in it which warrants the finding in his favor. The services were rendered in connection with the settlement of an estate, in which the defendant's only interest was as a legatee, who would receive a not very large sum, if the will should be allowed, or as a descendant of his grandfather, who would take as an heir at law, if the will should be set aside. Protection of such an interest of a minor does not come within the term 'necessaries,' as used in reference to the liability of minors. Ordinary rights of property are to be protected by a guardian, and not left to the care of the minor himself, or to the irresponsible action of third persons. Rev. Laws, c. 145, § 25. When proceedings affecting the minor as a party are going on in a court, a guardian ad litem is appointed. Rev. Laws, c. 145, § 23. A judgment against a minor, without a probate guardian or a guardian ad litem to represent him, is voidable upon a writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial