Pierson v. Pierson

• Decision Date: 17 July 1941
• Docket Number: 6852,6851,6853
• Citation: 63 Idaho 1,115 P.2d 742
• Parties: ELMER PIERSON, Respondent, v. JOHN N. PIERSON, and JOHN PIERSON as Executor of the Estate of Edla Marie Pierson, Deceased, Appellants. HAROLD PIERSON, Respondent, v. JOHN N. PIERSON, and JOHN N. PIERSON as Executor of the Estate of Edla Marie Pierson, Deceased, Appellants. VIRGIL PIERSON, Respondent, v. JOHN N. PIERSON, and JOHN N. PIERSON as Executor of the Estate of Edla Marie Pierson, Deceased, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

115 P.2d 742

63 Idaho 1

ELMER PIERSON, Respondent, v. JOHN N. PIERSON, and JOHN PIERSON as Executor of the Estate of Edla Marie Pierson, Deceased, Appellants.

HAROLD PIERSON, Respondent, v. JOHN N. PIERSON, and JOHN N. PIERSON as Executor of the Estate of Edla Marie Pierson, Deceased, Appellants.

VIRGIL PIERSON, Respondent, v. JOHN N. PIERSON, and JOHN N. PIERSON as Executor of the Estate of Edla Marie Pierson, Deceased, Appellants

Nos. 6851, 6852, 6853

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 17, 1941

HUSBAND AND WIFE-COMMUNITY PROPERTY-ACTION AGAINST ESTATE-WORK AND LABOR-CONTRACT-QUANTUM MERUIT-EVIDENCE-APPEAL AND ERROR-REMARKS OF COURT-EXCEPTION-INSTRUCTIONS.

1. In sons' actions against their father individually and as executor of their deceased mother's estate to recover on a quantum meruit for services rendered after reaching majority under contracts with father, father as executor was a "proper party" defendant, since, though no individual judgment could be obtained against the estate for the claim, the indebtedness if found to exist was a charge against the entire community property and collectible out of the community without or independent of any administration of the estate. (I. C. A. sec. 14-113.)

2. Though the death of one of the spouses dissolves the marital community, it does not leave the estate in the condition of a partnership when one of the partners dies, as against contention that upon the death of the wife the community estate must be administered in the same manner, as a partnership estate. (I. C. A. secs. 14-113, 15-806.)

3. Where the surviving husband of the marital community had the management and control of the community estate and business during wife's lifetime, husband was personally liable for community debts, and the whole of the community property was liable therefor. (I. C. A. sec. 14-113.)

4. Where a husband entered into contracts with his sons for the payment of monthly sums and the furnishing of room and board for services rendered, judgments rendered in actions on quantum meruit running against husband individually and as executor of the estate of his deceased wife and each of them could not be collected from the separate estate of the deceased wife, since she was not personally liable for the debt in her lifetime, and there could be no judgment against the estate except in so far as the estate profited from the community property. (I. C. A. sec. 14-113.)

5. Where the real issue in sons' actions against their father individually and as executor of the estate of their deceased mother on quantum meruit for services rendered after reaching majority was the reasonable value of the services and the trial court so instructed the jury, the admission of evidence concerning the value of personalty and realty accumulated by father during the period of sons' employment was not prejudicial.

6. The Supreme Court may not review the action of the trial court in making remarks concerning the action of counsel and the testimony of witnesses unless objection and exception are taken.

7. The refusal of the trial court to give requested instructions was not erroneous where the court covered the issues in the case very fully and fairly in his instructions and covered all questions properly raised or presented by the requested instructions.

8. In sons' actions on quantum meruit against their father individually and as executor of their deceased mother's estate to recover for services rendered after reaching majority under contracts with father, where evidence concerning whether housekeeper employed by father was married, single, or divorced was disclosed in establishing reason or lack of reason for repudiation of contracts merely as a collateral circumstance, a requested instruction on that matter was properly denied.

9. Evidence was sufficient for jury to find that father entered into contracts with his sons to pay them monthly sums and to furnish room and board for services and that father rendered it impossible for sons to carry out contracts by requiring them to leave his premises and consequently to discontinue the services, thus entitling sons to recover on a quantum meruit for services rendered after reaching their majority.

10. Where one party to a contract for services renders it impossible for the other party to carry out the contract, the latter may recover on a quantum meruit for the services rendered up to the time of the breach.

APPEALS from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. Bert A. Reed, Judge.

Actions on quantum meruit for sums due plaintiffs for services rendered. Judgment for plaintiffs. Affirmed as against John N. Pierson and reversed in part and modified as against John N. Pierson, as Executor of the Estate of Edla Marie Pierson Deceased.

Judgments against appellant John N. Pierson affirmed. Judgments against John N. Pierson, as Executor of the Estate of Edla Marie Pierson, reversed. No costs awarded.

Whitla & Knudson, for Appellants.

Complaint against estate deceased married woman states no cause of action where it is on community indebtedness. (Jaeckel v. Pease, 6 Idaho 131; Strode v. Miller, 7 Idaho 16; Holt v. Gridley, 7 Idaho 416; Bank of Commerce v. Baldwin, 12 Idaho 202; Roberts v. Hudson, 49 Idaho 132; McFarland v. Johnson, 22 Idaho 694; Larson v. Carter, 14 Idaho 511; Bank of Orofino v. Wellman, 26 Idaho 425.)

Husband and wife's relation to community property is partnership. (Kohny v. Dunbar, 21 Idaho 256; Radermacher v. Radermacher, 61 Idaho 261; Peterson v. Peterson, 35 Idaho 470.)

The interest of the deceased partner's estate only what is left after all indebtedness paid, and survivor has absolute right to settle partner's affairs. (Amunategui v. Spokane Cattle Loan Co., 36 Idaho 688; Dobet & Son, 165 F. 749; Conley v. Miller & Lux, 142 P. 83.)

Claim against estate basis of action and must have claim against decedent during lifetime. (Toulouse v. Burkett, 2 Idaho 184; Fallon v. Butler, 21 Cal. 24; In re McCausland Estate, 52 Cal. 568; Kline v. Gingery, 124 N.W. 958; In re Brust's Estate, 127 N.W. 11; Winston v. Young, 53 N.W. 1015; Branch v. Lambert, 205 P. 995; Barthe v. Rogers, 59 P. 310.)

Wernette & Crowley and Carl Buell, for Respondents.

Evidence sufficient to show work not gratuitous. (Hartley vs. Bohrer, 52 Idaho 72.)

Claim properly filed against estate of Edla Marie Pierson, deceased, and judgment against executor proper. (Sec. 14-113 I. C. A.; Sec. 15-615 I. C. A.; Sec. 15-701 I. C. A.; Sec. 15-1116 to 15-1133, inc. I. C. A.; Sec. 21, Article 5, of Idaho State Constitution; Dewey vs. Schrieber Implement Company, 12 Idaho 280; McElroy vs. Whitney, 24 Idaho 210; Moyes vs. Moyes, 60 Idaho 601; Snow vs. Probate Court, 60 Idaho 611.)

Testimony of plaintiff's witnesses as to value properly admitted and no error in excluding part of testimony of defendants' witness Johnson. (Basye vs. Hayes, 58 Idaho 569; Hartley vs. Bohrer, 52 Idaho 72; Idaho Gold Dredging Corporation vs. Boise Payette Lbr. Co., 54 Idaho 765.)

AILSHIE, J. Budge, C.J., and Givens, Morgan and Holden, J.J., concur.

OPINION

AILSHIE, J.

The respondents named in the caption hereof are brothers and each prosecuted an action against appellant (their father) for balance due on account of services rendered. The cases were consolidated for trial and the evidence, covering all three of the causes of action, was introduced before the same jury and three separate verdicts were rendered, as follows: For Harold Pierson, $ 4340.07; for Virgil Pierson, $ 2777.64; and for Elmer Pierson, $ 587.63. Judgments were entered on the verdicts and these appeals have been prosecuted therefrom.

Practically all the substantial facts of the case are controverted, so that we can only state the ultimate facts in these cases, upon the assumption that the jury accepted and believed the testimony by and on behalf of the respondents. Based on that assumption, it appears that in 1910 appellant, with his family, moved on a 160-acre homestead, on what was formerly the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation, in the vicinity of Worley. The place was heavily timbered with yellow pine, fir and tamarack. A considerable amount of clearing was done each year until the entire place, with the exception of 25 or 30 acres, was cleared. Eventually more land was purchased until the farm consisted of 320 acres, with other land leased by appellant from time to time. At the time of moving on the homestead, respondents, Harold and Virgil Pierson were nine and two years of age, respectively; Elmer, the third son, was born in 1914. When about 15 years old, Harold left school to help his father, who, it is claimed, promised to give him $ 25.00 a month, with room and board, to work on the farm. At the end of the second year of high school, Virgil was given the same proposition by his father, he being 19 years of age at the time. The younger son, Elmer, finished high school, and in 1935, the father gave him a like proposition of $ 25.00 a month, with room and board. The testimony of each son indicates they were to share equally in the place, and that it was to be eventually divided up among them. According to instructions from their father, each kept an account of everything he received, in the way of clothing, money, etc.

From a log house and barn, in 1910, the family, after many years acquired a good modern residence, fine barn and other outbuildings, equipment consisting of farm-all tractor, combine, grain drill, and other modern farm tools and equipment. The soil on the place was known as the "Sandpoint silt loam type," and "good crops" were raised of wheat, barley, oats, peas, alfalfa and other farm products, and "as high as up to ten and twelve acres of corn a year for ensilage purposes." ...