Murrell v. Studstill

• Decision Date: 26 May 1898
• Parties: MURRELL. v. STUDSTILL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

30 S.E. 750

104 Ga. 604

MURRELL.

v.STUDSTILL.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 26, 1898.

Work and Labor—Implied Contracts for Services—Family Relations.

1. Ordinarily a promise is not implied to pay a reasonable value for services rendered in the care and attention to a very near relative. Where, however, the parties sustain towards each other the relationship of grandparent and an adult grandchild, and the circumstances show that the grandparent does not stand in loco parentis as to the child, and the services performed by the child are not only in the nature of care and attention bestowed upon an old and infirm grandparent, but are such as to indicate the relation of master and servant, or employer and employe, and where the character of service rendered, taken in connection with other surrounding circumstances, indicates that it was the intention of both parties that compensation should be made, and negatives the idea that services were performed merely because of a natural sense of duty or love and affection arising out of the relation of the parties, a foundation for a recovery for such services would be established.

2. The evidence in this case, which was a suit by a granddaughter against the estate of her grandfather for services rendered, was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer an implied contract to compensate the plaintiff for her services, and the court, therefore, erred in granting a nonsuit.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Error from superior court, Telfair county; C. C. Smith, Judge.

Action by P. C. Murrell against W. A. Studstill, administrator. There was a Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

D. C. McLennan, for plaintiff In error.

Eason & McRae, for defendant in error.

LEWIS, J. This was an action against the administrator of the estate of the plaintiff's grandfather upon a quantum meruit for services rendered by her to the intestate In his household in waiting upon him and his wife, in cooking for them, and in rendering other services upon the premises. From the testimony it appeared that the plaintiff, who was then an adult, left the home of her mother and stepfather, and went to her grandfather's house, remaining there for nearly three years. During that time she not only waited upon her grandparents and performed the ordinary duties of a housekeeper for them, but also cooked and washed, and at times worked in the field on the farm, —"pulled corn, if necessary, and picked cotton." The testimony further showed that her services were worth from $10 to $20 per month. Plaintiff testified that she did not live with her grandparents as one of the family, and the reason she did not was that she was working for a living. She ate at the table with them, however, and was treated as one of the family. Her grandfather bought some of her clothes, or furnished her the money to buy part of them, and she bought some herself with her money which she had made by taking in sewing. At the time of the death of the intestate he was worth about $5,000. The money furnished by him to the plaintiff did not amount to more than a few dollars. A number of witnesses testified that the deceased had talked with them about compensating plaintiff for her services, stating that he intended to pay her for what she had done for him; that he was satisfied that none of his children would have waited on him without pay, nor any of the rest of his grandchildren, and that he was going to pay her for her trouble; that she had been good to wait on him during his sickness, and attend to everything about the place; and that he intended to give her a good living out of what he had for her services during the time, she stayed with him. It appeared, further, that plaintiff went to the home of her grandfather at his instance, one of the witnesses testifying that the plaintiff was "employed" to stay with her grandfather. At the conclusion of plaintiff...