Ridler v. Ridler

• Decision Date: 25 October 1897
• Citation: 72 N.W. 671,103 Iowa 470
• Parties: ESTHER RIDLER, Appellant, v. J. W. RIDLER, Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE RIDLER, Deceased
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

72 N.W. 671

103 Iowa 470

ESTHER RIDLER, Appellant, v. J. W. RIDLER, Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE RIDLER, Deceased

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 25, 1897

Appeal from Dubuque District Court.--HON. J. L. HUSTED, Judge.

PROCEEDINGS to establish a claim for work and labor against the estate of George Ridler, deceased. The administrator denied the claim and further pleaded the statute of limitations, and also pleaded that claimant is a daughter of the deceased, and that, during the time the labor and work was performed, she lived with the deceased as a member of his family, and performed the services as such. Trial to a jury; verdict and judgment for the administrator; and claimant appeals.

Reversed.

R. W Stewart for appellant.

Longueville & McCarthy for appellee.

OPINION

DEEMER, J.

This is the second time the case has been before us. The first opinion will be found in 93 Iowa 347. Upon a re-trial claimant introduced the same evidence and proved the same state of facts as are recited in that opinion. The pleadings are the same with this exception: that appellant filed an amendment to her claim, in which she stated that it was orally agreed between herself and father that she should receive compensation for her services, which should be paid out of his estate after his death. In the former opinion we held that the case should have gone to the jury on the evidence adduced. At the trial from which this appeal is taken, the case was submitted to a jury, with the result above indicated. A number of errors are assigned, which we will now consider.

Mrs. Mathias Thompson, a half-sister of appellant, was a witness for the administrator. During the course of her examination in chief, she volunteered this statement: "But, then, Esther didn't work at home just as a hired girl." Claimant moved to strike it out, as a conclusion, incompetent, immaterial, and improper. The motion was overruled, and exception taken. This question was propounded to her on cross-examination: "Q. I suppose you didn't allow a girl that was working for you to go out of an evening, or have company come to the house to see her? That would not be consistent with your ideas of a hired girl's duty, would it?" To which she answered: "A. Why, Esther was not considered a hired girl at my father's house; she was considered as one of the children." Appellant moved to strike this answer, as not responsive, a conclusion, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. This motion was also overruled. These rulings were manifestly incorrect. The voluntary statement was simply a conclusion of the witness, Peck v. McKean, 45 Iowa 18; and the answer to the question was incompetent and not responsive.

A witness for the administrator was asked this question "Q. Do you know what the services of taking care of them during that time would be worth in that neighborhood?" To which he responded: "A. I don't know, because I never heard of any one being hired just specially for that. The most of them out there, the neighbors turn in, and help, and their own family takes care of them, and I don't know as we ever heard of a charge being made, only in the evidence here yesterday." Appellant moved to strike the answer, because not responsive, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. That it was not responsive is clear, and it is just as apparent that the...