Pollock v. Ray

• Decision Date: 07 January 1878
• Citation: 85 Pa. 428
• Parties: Pollock <I>versus</I> Ray.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

85 Pa. 428

Pollock versus Ray.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 12, 1877.

January 7, 1878.

November 12th 1877.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD and STERRETT, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, of Washington county: Of October and November Term 1877, No. 18.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Boyd Crumrine and D. F. Patterson, for plaintiff in error.— The alleged agreement with the decedent had none of the marks of a contract: Neal v. Gilmore, 29 P. F. Smith 421.

Thompson v. Stevens, 21 P. F. Smith 161, and Graham v. Graham, 10 Casey 475, differ from this case. The declarations in the former case were to the effect that, if the plaintiff "would stay with him as long as he lived he would provide and give her plenty after he was gone, so that she need not to work," and, in the latter, "if they would go and live with him until death he would give her as much as any relation he had on earth." These promises were made directly to the parties, face to face, and they did live with those who made the promises until their deaths. Here there was no mutuality of obligation; no condition to be performed by plaintiff; nothing, in fact, but a declaration of intention on Pollock's part.

The testimony as to the value of the decedent's estate at his death was inadmissible; Graham v. Graham, 10 Casey 475; Neal v. Gilmore, 29 P. F. Smith 421.

There was no such evidence of a contract as should have gone to a jury: Bush v. Bush, 9 Barr 262; Thompson v. Stevens, supra; Neal v. Gilmore, supra; Jordon v. Dutton, 1 Phila. 437.

Braden & Miller, for defendants in error.—There was sufficient evidence to warrant the finding of the jury: Graham v. Graham, supra; Thompson v. Stevens, supra; Cottrell's Estate, 2 W. N. C. 83. There can be no distinction, as insisted, between a promise made before the services are rendered and one made after they are rendered: Snyder v. Castor's Adm'r, 4 Yeates 353.

Mr. Justice SHARSWOOD delivered the opinion of the court, January 7th 1878.

The main question in this cause is whether the plaintiff below gave sufficient evidence of a special contract by which payment for her services was postponed until the death of the decedent, James Pollock. The services for which she claimed to be paid were rendered to him before 1861, when she left his house. Of course, if there was no such special contract as alleged her demand was clearly barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Claims of this character against the estates of decedents, resting on mere oral testimony of declarations or admissions, are very dangerous, and ought certainly not to be favored by the courts. "The danger attendant upon the assertion of such claims requires, as was said by Chief Justice GIBSON, in reference to a somewhat similar contract, that a tight rein should be held over them, by making the quality, if not the sum of the proof, a subject of inspection and governance by the court, and by holding juries strictly to the rule prescribed." Per STRONG, J., in Graham v. Graham's Ex'rs, 10 Casey 481.

We think that both the quality and sum of the evidence in this case were entirely insufficient. The question ought not to have been submitted to the jury. All the declarations proved were only indicative of an intention to leave the plaintiff a legacy — to provide for her by will. Mrs. Gordon testified that Pollock said: "We intend to do as well by her as we do by our own child." He said, "if she lived after him he would do well by her at his death." Mrs. Ayers testified: "He said he intended to leave her and do as well by her as his own." "He said he intended to do well by her, and at his death he would make her as good as an heir. He said he would will it; did not use the word `will' or `heir;' he said he would do as well by her as his own; that is what he said. He just said he intended to leave her and do as well by her as his own." "I heard Esquire Pollock say he would do well by her, or he would pay her wages."

If the declarations had been to the effect that if the plaintiff would remain with him until his death he would then...