Phillips v. Owens
| Decision Date | 14 December 1910 |
| Parties | PHILLIPS v. OWENS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Executors and Administrators (§ 221*) — Claims Against Decedent's Estate—Evidence.
The verdict in this case was unauthorized by the evidence; it appearing that the suit for the value of petitioner's services was based upon a claim for compensation for services rendered to one who stood in loco parentis to the plaintiff, and that the evidence showed no facts raising the implication of a promise or agreement to pay for the services.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Dec. Dig. § 221.*]
Error from Superior Court, Franklin County; C. H. Brand, Judge.
Action by Victoria Owens against E. P. Phillips. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for new trial denied, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
W. R. Little and J. B. Jones, for plaintiff in error.
B. T. Moseley, T. G. Dorough, and A. G. & Julian McCurry, for defendant in error.
BECK, J. Mrs. Victoria Owens brought suit against E. P. Phillips, administrator of the estate of Wilborn Phillips, seeking to recover on a quantum meruit for services rendered to the defendant's intestate, alleging that when she was about eight months old she was carried to the home of Wilborn Phillips, and remained there until his death, which took place shortly after she attained her majority; that up to the time when she reached the age of ten years her services "were well worth her board and clothes, and after that time were worth far more than her board and clothes, and that as she grew older her valuable services greatly increased, up to the death of Wilborn Phillips"; that the money value of her services in the aggregate was $1,800, or other large sum; and that the defendant's intestate had said in the presence of witnesses that it was his intention to give a certain tract of landto petitioner, which was of about the value of $1,800, but he died without carrying into effect his expressed intention of making deeds to the tract of land conveying same to petitioner. Evidence was introduced to show the character of the services rendered by petitioner and the work done by her for Wilborn Phillips. It appears, from the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, that she did work of various kinds; that she picked cotton, hoed corn, pulled fodder, strewed guano, washed clothes, starched, ironed, milked, and cooked; she frequently worked as a laborer in the field; and that she fed cattle on the farm. The jury trying the case returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor for $975. The defendant made a motion for a new trial; and the court below, after hearing the same, ordered that, if plaintiff would write off $245 from the amount of the verdict, a new trial should be disallowed. The plaintiff complied with this condition, writing off the amount specified. The defendant excepted to the refusal to grant a new trial generally and unconditionally.
After an examination of the evidence in this record, we are of the opinion that the court below should have set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the ground that the same was unauthorized by the evidence in the case. It appears that the plaintiff was carried to the home of Wilborn Phillips when she was an infant, less than one year of age. While the evidence is somewhat confused as to the terms upon which She was left with Wilborn Phillips and his wife, it is clearly established that the father of the infant knew that she had been carried to the house, and ratified the act of the person leaving her at the Phillips home, and that from that date until his death Phillips stood in loco parentis to the child which had been left in his care. Phillips, the decedent, was a farmer of moderate means. He had several children, and all of them worked on the farm and did work of the same character as that performed by the plaintiff, although there was some evidence tending to show that the plaintiff perhaps did more work than certain other members of the family. There is no evidence in the case to show that there was any contract, express or implied, whereby the defendant's intestate became obligated to pay the plaintiff for any services rendered. There is not a word in the record tending to show that Wilborn Phillips had at any time agreed to pay the plaintiff for her services, or that he had said in her presence, even in the most general terms, that she should or would be compensated for her work. Nor is there anything to show that the plaintiff ever stated to Wilborn Phillips that she expected to be paid for the work that she was doing. The fact that Wilborn Phillips said on several occasions, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial