Medhurst v. McCrohan, 7917.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1938
• Docket Number: No. 7917.,7917.
• Citation: 200 A. 532
• Parties: MEDHURST v. McCROHAN et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

200 A. 532

MEDHURST

v. McCROHAN et al.

No. 7917.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 28, 1938.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Leonidas Pouliot, Jr., Judge.

Action in assumpsit to recover for services rendered, by Walter L. Medhurst against Hattie McCrohan and another. Judgment for plaintiff for $245, and defendants bring exceptions.

Exceptions sustained and case remitted.

Fergus J. McOsker, of Providence, for plaintiff. Daniel A. Colton, of Providence, for defendants.

FLYNN, Chief Justice.

>

This is an action in assumpsit to recover for services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendants under an alleged express joint and several contract. The case was tried in the superior court, on appeal from the district court, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for substantially the full amount of his claim, namely, $245. The defendants' motion for a new trial was later denied by the trial justice, and the case is before us on the defendants' exceptions to this ruling and to the charge and other rulings of the trial justice during the trial.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff formerly worked as chauffeur, secretary and general utility man for Anna Dio, who died intestate June 1, 1934. The plaintiff's work, during her lifetime, included the management and care of her property, real and personal, for which he was paid $30 per week. The defendants are two of five heirs of the deceased. On June 8, 1934, one week after her death, they met the plaintiff at the office of his attorney and one of them signed a petition for appointment of the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Anna Dio. The plaintiff testified that the following conversation then and there took place with reference to his continuing, as before, to care for the property pending the appointment of an administrator: "Q. Now will you tell us what was said with reference to the care of this property pending the appointment of an administrator? A. Well, it was said that there should be someone to take care of the property, both places, on account of—especially at Quonset—in regards to places might be broken into, thievery,—there is more or less going on at those summer places, of course,—and also the house at Elmwood; and Mrs. McCrohan asked me what Mrs. Dio was paying me and I told her $30 a week. Mrs. Thiesing says, 'Well, that is $5 a day,' and Mrs. McCrohan says, 'Well, that is agreeable' * * *." The above statements of the defendants were corroborated by the plaintiff's attorney.

No testimony of any express language used by the defendants or either of them appears in the transcript excepting what is quoted above from the evidence. Both the plaintiff and his attorney, however, testified by way of conclusion, without stating the exact language of the defendants or either of them, that "they decided" and "both agreed" to pay the plaintiff for his services at the rate of $5 per day until an administrator was appointed. The defendants, however, strongly denied the making of any such agreement as alleged.

Apparently, some forty-nine days thereafter, which the plaintiff testified was much longer than originally expected, another person was appointed administrator of the estate of Anna Dio and the plaintiff was relieved of further work. The plaintiff first filed a claim against and attempted to recover from the estate of Anna Dio; but this case was decided in the district court for the defendant administrator, without prejudice. Thereupon this new action was begun solely against the two defendants here.

The defendants make three principal contentions ; first, that it was error for the trial court to admit testimony of the plaintiff as to value of his services upon a quantum meruit; second, it was error for the trial court to deny the defendants' motion for a directed verdict...